Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
this is a very good journal about electromagnetics. it is very fast and very efficient. it is very easy to publish in this journal.
Motivation:
Very responsive and friendly editor, but I was disappointed in how long we had to wait for the second round of reviews.
Motivation:
My only complaint about this journal is the slow review process. Other than that, I feel that the editor and reviewers are very fair and great to work with.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "xxx" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
Although review process was very slow but reviewers comments significantly improved our manuscript.
Motivation:
First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn’t in his/hers expertise.
Motivation:
Of course, I recommend this journal if we can publish the paper in it, but I am not very satisfied with the response of the associate editor and two reviewers, because they all put forward the comments not really related to the species distribution models, which is the main approach of our paper. They gave me the feeling that all reviewers are not working on species distribution models, becasue their critics are about the data we used and the resolution we determine. But the time of the process seems ok that we can get the decision quickly.
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript and the initial process was very slow. I got periodic responses that appeared to be automatic form letters and/or that they were having trouble finding an academic editor and reviewers. Eventually I received a rejection. However that decision was based on the comments from 1 reviewer and it was apparent that the paper was not read, nor were the comments about the content of the submission nor were the reasons for rejection, logical. Consequently I appealed the decision. That was a mistake because it took an additional 7 months to get a decision. I would get periodic emails apologizing for the delays indicating that a decision would come soon. Eventually following numerous email exchanges, I demanded that a decision be made. A week later the paper was rejected based on the opinion of one reviewer.. Having published numerous papers over the years I was disappointed but can accept the decisions. However no paper should take 10 months from submission to final decision, and one would expect that if reviews come back that are poor themselves, an additional reviewer would be identified.
Motivation:
Yes, very detailed suggestions from reviewers, seem to be fair handling of our paper.
Motivation:
Fast decision.
Motivation:
The reviewers and the editor rejected our manuscript because they said it was missing a comparison with some alternative methods.
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
5.7 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My co-author submitted the manuscript in the wrong format, without the supplementary materials, and the journal staff took several emails to communicate with us and make sure they had all the correct files and our correct addresses before they sent it out for review.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"I regret to inform you that the PNAS Editorial Board has declined your manuscript for further consideration. We receive many more good papers than we can publish and the Board must carefully weigh which papers merit external review. The expert who served as editor concluded that although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Motivation:
Solid handling of the manuscript and decent reviews. One reviewer was highly engaged while the other provided only brief comments, but the editorial instructions helped us to navigate the process well.
Motivation:
The review process was fast.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
Motivation:
We are satisfied with the submission process as well as with the reviewers because it was fast and not as burdensome as it is in other journals. The submission process saves time and that was very valuable for us.
Motivation:
The review process was horribly sluggish. The ~190days for the first decision is unacceptable.