Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
21.3 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Drawn back
Motivation:
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.

29.6 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: A frustrating experience. The manuscript was sent out to reviewers 4 months after the submission, and only after we contacted the editor to ask about progress. The editor did not respond to this email nor explain the delay, but a few weeks later the manuscript was finally sent to external reviewers. The quality of the reviews was mixed, one being strong and constructive, one incorrect based on a misunderstanding of the methodology (criticizing something which was not done), and one very short. The reviews contained no recommendations regarding rejection or resubmission and the editor did not comment on the content of the manuscript nor summarize the reviews to explain why the manuscript was rejected instead of invited for a resubmission, given that most of the reviewer suggestions were questions for further elaboration or analyses which could be adressed in a revision.
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
Motivation: Although the editor rejected our paper, we received a quite positive letter from her. The problem mostly lied in that our paper was not interesting enough and the editor had an idea of that before sending the paper for peer review. However she acted professionally and based her final judgement at least partly on one of the reviews.
4.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Quality check process also takes time. At least one week. Reviews were constructive and I agree with several points the reviewers made.
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: I received an incredibly considerate and constructive rejection letter, the most encouraging and helpful rejection I have ever received.
14.7 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: Two positive reviews, suggesting minor revisions, one positive review that suggested a reframing, and one off-the-charts sarcastic, unpleasant, reviewer who hated the paper and accused it of numerous misunderstandings, while himself clearly lacking basic knowledge of the field. Maybe the editors received the poor review first, then kindly sent it on to the other more positive reviewers - but honestly, that was one of the least helpful and nastiest reviews I have ever received and I would hope nobody else ever had to experience it.
3.9 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: One referee made useless comments like "you should change the text" or "let someone who is a native speaker check the English" (even though my co-author is native English speaker and the manuscript was checked by a professional proof-reading agency). Additionally, the reviewer was demanding information which was definitely included in the manuscript. Still I tried to address all his/ her comments in a satisfying way. Yet, in the end the reviewer rejected with the sentence "It looks like a normal paper". No helpful comments during the whole process. Luckily, when I contacted the Editor, he agreed with me and exchanged the one reviewer. Ulitmately, the paper was accepted.
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers gave technically limited arguments which were rebutted after outright rejection, to no avail.
n/a
n/a
84 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After waiting a long time for an editorial revision, the paper was denied publication without any sort of reasoning or justification. After inquiring the editor for a reason and being given a nod for an answer I am still waiting for a reply. That experience was extremely frustrating.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The process was satisfactorily fast. I was informed that my manuscript does not trump their already existing vast number of submissions (not exactly in these words, but the meaning was clear). The editorial staff did not waste my time and were quite clear about their rejection grounds. I would recommend submitting to this journal.
7.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers comments were useful (although somewhat too demanding) and helped us improve the manuscript. The editor was helpful and asked us to resubmit within 4 weeks.
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Rejected
Motivation: Review process was efficient and response received in short duration. Although reviewers comments were overall positive and can e addressed, editors decided to reject.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Paper was transferred from Neuron based on fake critics. Reviewer made false presentation of the manuscript content and constructed on those fakes a fake criticism. Editor at Cell Reports send again to same reviewer even so my detailed response to the invalid arguments should have been obvious. Reviewer took this opportunity to again abuse his anonymity and produced fake more news. Most unpleasant experience of a mail-robotic editor.
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Although I do not know when the editorial board submitted requests to the reviewers, the reviews were not reflecting 3-month-period of the thorough review.
- The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work.
- The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references)
- The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced.

I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal.
I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic.
The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude.
Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.

n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: It is difficult to pass the barrier of the inner review process set by the members of the editorial board (some big guys). They gave us low points in the initial evaluation, making the manuscript cannot be further reviewed by external reviewers. Though rejected, I appreciate the decision speed and the editor's attitude.
15.1 weeks
28.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: As one of the authors of the manuscript, I feel that the reviewers and the editor did not understand the core of our propositions with this article. I nevertheless appreciate their comments and suggestions and will always seek to publish with this journal again.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The article was rejected on the basis that the editor(s) were: "not persuaded that your paper provides the kind of substantial conceptual advance in our understanding of the drivers of climate change concern and action more generally that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of researchers across the breadth of the climate community"

This was the most likely to reject the manuscript on my list of potential outlets for the paper so the decision did not come as much of a surprise.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast decision
9.4 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
4.4 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent turnaround time, high quality reviews and detailed feedback on the stage of your paper within the cycle.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: My paper was transferred to "Journal of Physical Chemistry C" from "ACS Energy Letters" following the advice of the editor of "ACS Energy Letters".
Then after waiting for nearly 2 months, I received just some general reviewer comments (6 lines of text recommending rejection - not original enough was the only argument) and from just 1 reviewer. This reviewer job could have been done in just 2 hours but it took nearly 2 months!
I will never again submit to this journal. It shows no respect for the authors.
n/a
n/a
62 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I have submitted two manuscripts to this Journal and they sent back to me without external review. I have submitted both the manuscripts to other Journals without any modification and there they out for external review.
Immediately accepted after 15.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
16.0 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The funny part is that me and one of my co-authors received an invitation to review the article! We did not accept it and mentioned it to the editor in chief without any answer from his part. However, the reviewers' remarks were constructive and important to improve the manuscript.
8.6 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
2
Accepted
Motivation: The handling time was way to long. After the initial submission our manuscript was actually rejected and we were encouraged to resubmit. However, for the resubmission we just included four more sentences in the manuscript and it felt indeed more like a minor revision. I do think that the reason to reject our manuscript after the first review round was simply to reduce the official total handling time of our manuscript. Now the date of the first revision counts as date of submission and thus the almost 9 weeks of the first review round are just hidden for statistics.

In addition, the reviewer comments were not very helpful and finally the published article is almost the same (except for the four added sentences) as the initially submitted manuscript - just that it took them almost 4 months.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
23.0 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
31.3 weeks
46.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
51.4 weeks
51.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: It just takes too long.
7.3 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: second round rejection without much of a reason given; quick handling, but one out of the three reviews in the first round was so poor that the editors should have noticed.
11.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were very constructive and allowed me to improve my manuscript.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
5.4 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
8.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected