Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
15.6 weeks
34.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
0.1 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
17.3 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 3.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
15.3 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
7.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.1 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very good journal and an excellent editor. He knows the value of time and doesn't delay any process at all.
15.0 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
54.0 weeks
91.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Accepted
3.7 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
3.0 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
30.7 weeks
30.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
6.0 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: My main problem was the slowness of the process. The time to get editorial feedback back on our proposed scheme for a revision, and then the proposed scheme for the rebuttal and second small revisions, delayed things.
Also there was one reviewer who was quite unreasonable and asked for a lot of new experiments on the revised manuscript. The editor overrode them in the end, and focused on the one relevant issue they brought up, which I was grateful for.
15.2 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
3.9 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Knowledgeable reviewers (clearly experts in the area) provided constructive feedback. The review process was quick and efficient. The MS was handled very well by the editor.
9.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
14.9 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
10.1 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The Editor provided a helpful summary of the reviews, which were all constructive and helpful. Overall very satisfied with the review process.
9.6 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
9.1 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
6.6 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall: not enough editorial filtering.
One of the reviewers flagged a statistical query, which is what got a statistical reviewer involved. The first review was easy enough to address, requiring clarifications and some additional statistical analyses to rule out confounding (which we were able to do). The second, third and fourth rounds were only with the statistical reviewer as the others were satisfied with the first response. I understand that statistical reviewers are important in population-level studies, but there has to be some editorial sense-checking of the comments coming in. They cannot allow comments that contradict previous suggestions and just leave the authors to go back and forth catering to every whim and fancy. We had to deal with one comment that was so bizarre, that it required us to produce a two-page long table that added nothing to the material presented in the manuscript, and is unlike anything published in the field.
However, another issue is the copy-editing and house style of the journal. There are way too many deviations from SI systems, and these all become the author's problem to incorporate. It is especially challenging for graphing, where restrictions by colour palette, and the unique method of writing units mean that every graph required special formatting syntax. Additionally, we had so many conflicting comments from the copy editors in subsequent reviews: change LDL Cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol and then change LDL-cholesterol to LDLc.
A journal need only bother with formatting figures down to colour schemes etc once they have accepted a manuscript, so long as the figures are legible and clear. Starting from the first revision to the third we were saddled with minor formatting requests, that could easily have all been pooled at the end. It would also be helpful if journals in general gave dpi requirements for grayscale and coloured images instead of simply saying what is sent across was inadequate.
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: A quick review process. The editor was very polite and attentive.
7.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.0 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very efficient.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: I believe the quality of the reviews could have been much higher. Nature is a journal that requires the highest quality and standard for it's submissions in order to be sent out to review. Once it is sent out, the editors should, in my opinion, adhere to the same highest standard when judging the quality of the reviews.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers had generic criticism about the fact that other authors (they name them, but they do not point to specific papers) already addressed the same problem. Not pointing out any specific paper is very annoying because of course authors are convinced that there are differences w.r.t. literature work. Just saying that other authors worked in the same area or the same problem without the possibility to verify it is not enough. Other criticism was ok in the sense that they required further experiments and practical validation. However, saying that what is proposed cannot be implemented in practice in a straightforward way is again generic without pointing out any specific concern about the transferrability of the result in the real world.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Immediately accepted after 9.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The review process was relatively quick, though it would have been beneficial to receive more extended feedback/review as some journals are wont to do. I was only informed of the acceptance, which was pleasant but the article might have profited from more concrete scrutiny. As well, as far as I know there's little by way of copy-editing provided.
5.7 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: a perfect review experience, a fair editorial process, and an excellent journal
8.4 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Our manuscript was initially rejected after the first round of reviews. It seemed to us the decision was largely based on the a methodological misunderstanding from only one reviewer. We appealed the decision and were granted an appeal on the condition of providing significant additional data (including totally new approaches not used in our original submission). We revised the manuscript over the course of several months and resubmitted with all the requested data, which greatly improved the paper. After another, positive round of reviews we were asked to make some additional cosmetic changes and the manuscript was finally accepted a year after the initial submission.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The reports were timely and professionally written.
4.3 weeks
4.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
5.9 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Happy with the pace with which the journal handled our papers, and appreciated the reviewer comments. Good experience overall.
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision for desk reject seemed rather arbitrary (policy article for a policy journal rejected on the grounds of not fitting). But I appreciated that the response was relatively fast and I could send it somewhere else rapidly.
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling. Reviewers' comments were straightforward and actionable.
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: We sent our manuscript to the journal knowing that they have clear principles regarding quality but also regarding time of the reviewing process. The experience we have is just in this direction.
The whole process is automated and therefore clear and transparent. The reviews were helpful and in a positive mind but also critical. After putting much effort again to revise our manuscript we resubmitted and the decision was made in a short time.

As reviewer for that journal for many articles I also know that the editor is very clear to set boundaries for the time for the reviewers. That is very helpful for scientists as we know it is necessary to publish much and in good quality (this is not the best thing but reality) so it is a great difference in comparison to some journals which let you wait a year or more just to get a negative answer.
Regarding the review process my experience also is that the answers from other reviewers are also mostly polite and nevertheless critical and in many cases the manuscripts have to be rejected. This let us compare the weight of being accepted in that journal.

All in all we could see that it is a clear and good way of the journal to work with authors and reviewers to get results which rely on good work and not only on significant results.
9.6 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very friendly staff in Editorial Board. The editor responds to email queries within 12 hours. It is a total learning experience.
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected