Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I believe any editorial decision, such as rejection of non-interesting papers, should be done within a few days. We though our paper sent to reviewers to get comments but we surprise to get rejection for a strange reason which they want deep learning papers. Note, before we sent our paper we contact with related section editor, i.e. image processing section, and he was interested in my paper abstract.
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: Only complaint: in our view the reviewer's comments could have been rather easily accommodated in a revision, clearly the editor thought otherwise.
10.1 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: There were numerous rounds of revisions, but each time the journal and editors responded fairly and in a timely fashion. Overall, a positive experience.
13.3 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: After the paper was accepted, there were several times of very careful and kind minor revisions with technical editors.
3.6 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Of the first two reviewers the second one withdraw of the review process, this made to extend the review time.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Drawn back
12.6 weeks
32.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews of the external editors were of overall high quality. Moreover, the additional comments by the editor who summarized the reviewers´ comments and added comments of her own were very helpful and detailed, and helped to fine-tune the manuscript. Finally, we always received rapid and friendly answers to all of our questions during the editorial process.
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: I received two reviews and further comments from the editor with critiques and suggestions about the general argument, various details in my piece, English infelicities, and general tone of the paper. All of them very helpful, good experience.
6.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
12.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: I am extremely satisfied by the way the manuscript has been handled by the editorial board.
17.1 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 109.0 days
Drawn back
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I appreciated that in addition to providing the comments from the external reviewers they also included general comments relating to the journal itself. One challenge I experienced was that while I was submitting my response the system timed out and did not save what I had entered. I would recommend you save your response in a separate file and copy it into the response box rather than directly typing it in.
2.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of [...], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
2.0 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.7 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Provided 3 alternative journals name but did not say why exactly why it did not.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It took a while for them to make a decision, but the response was very detailed with clear reasons given for the rejection.
3.3 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Wonderful experience. The speed and efficiency of the journal and editor was outstanding.
16.3 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
31.9 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers did not read the paper beyond the introduction and did not understand the motivation of the paper at all. He/she also made a handful of mathematically wrong statements. The other reviewer clearly read the paper and made a list of editorial corrections.Main purpose of the paper was also lost on him/her.
3.1 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
51.3 weeks
52.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Accepted
4.1 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was relatively quick and painless. However, it was made a little complicated by having an editor and sub-edit assigned on the other side of the world. This led to slow communications at times which made the process painfully tedious. The final editorial review was also quite tedious with literally 5 pages of editorial comments which needed to be addressed. Most of these were standard requests for stylistic editing which did not necessarily apply, but we were given the impression they needed to be addressed nonetheless. In one case there was a request which was not clear and attempts to get clarification took almost 2 weeks. This was very frustrating at the point of acceptance, exacerbated by the time difference between authors and editorial staff.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
11.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 1.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
12.7 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
14.3 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: It was a slow process to get the first and second review, but the quality of the review reports was excellent. I wouldn't recommend if you want to publish fast, but would recommend for the quality of the journal and their rigorous review.
8.7 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Editor spent 20 days to find the reviewers. Reviewers' comments are fair and addressable.
After the second round, there were no further comments then accepted directly.
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
6.6 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The Review process appeared to be rather smooth. There was a small delay in the last round ("Decision in Progress" status for some days), but overall the experience was very good.
8.1 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)