Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
First review round was reasonably fast and reviews very very useful and from very competent reviewers. Second review round took some time, but the waiting until final decision after the second review was unnecessary long as there were only two minor changes to look through.
Motivation:
Only 1 reviewer report was provided along with the rejection letter. The reviewer comments mostly focused on the technical imperfection of the paper instead of the scientific significance/knowledge the paper bears. One of the exact comment from the reviewer sounds "The original idea of the paper is lackluster to be considered for publication in high impact journal like Nano Energy". The editor's decision based solely on a single reviewer's comments is unconvincing.
Motivation:
After the paper was accepted, it was put on hold fpr an additional 20 months (!!!) before being published. Prior to publication the editors all of a sudden requested anpther round of sunstantial papers, 12 months after the manuscript had been accepted.
Motivation:
The time for desk rejection was short (which was a good point), but comments, sent by editor have shown that he even did not read the paper completely! He was asking about some tests and references which were already in the paper! Although he had some good recommendations about the manuscript.
Motivation:
Swift peer-review process and response by the journal editorial office. The constructive suggestions provided by the reviewers have definitely helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review reports were excellent and very constructive. Interactive review is a very good way to address reviewers's concerns. I highly recommend this journal to fellow scientists.
Motivation:
A journal that decides that an article submitted wasn't in line with its scope after this manuscript has been reviewed for over 8 months, is poor
Motivation:
I was very satisfied with the review process. I had two reviewers, one very positive and one rather negative. The editor seemed to like the article and gave us a rejection with the chance to resubmit. The reviewer reports were good quality and although they required a large amount of work, the suggestions greatly improved the paper. We re-submitted and the paper was sent back to the initial reviewers who were both happy with the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. I was very happy with the handling, the speed, and the reviewer reports. The subject editor seems to evaluate papers objectively and I am happy that he/she was not dissuaded by the initial negative report of reviewer 2, but rather saw potential in the paper and gave us the chance to improve it. Nothing but good experiences with this journal.
Motivation:
it is a very good and very fast journal. the first round of review takes about 3 weeks only. we should indicate that there are 3 reviewers (two technical and the other one for improving the English text)
46.0 weeks
46.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Almost a year passed away from the initial submission and the two reviewers developed a superficial revision of the paper in 6/7 sentences. Furthermore, unfortunately and somehow they were contradictory. For instance, the 1st reviewer argue that "Professional native-speaker proofreading required!", instead the 2nd one pointed out that "Again, congratulations for the writing and structure of the paper. It is clear and well-done".
Motivation:
Received a useful desk rejection with extensive editorial comments.
Motivation:
Disappointing result but at least (unlike the other high-impact magazine) the immediate rejection was only one week (instead of several).
Motivation:
Quick review, the reviewers focused on important issues of the paper. Quick responses.
Motivation:
Some problem with review process. But overall rating is quite good.
Motivation:
Paper was rejected by the editor on the grounds that it was 'out of scope of this journal'. I was surprised by this; the article was on a topic that the journal publishes on regularly. They recommended that we transfer the manuscript to a journal of the ACS Applied series, which we declined, as our article had little to do with the subject of that journal.
Motivation:
Review process was very slow but reviewers were very kind.
Motivation:
The desk rejection time is disappointingly long.
Motivation:
One of the referees was constructive, but the other was not. I think we could answer to the questions&comments of this critical reviewer, however the editors didn't offered an opportunity for revision.
Motivation:
In our view, the manuscript improved substantially through the review process.
Motivation:
They say the article is interesting and well-crafted but too narrow. I do not fault their decision, but it strikes me as having taken too long to be communicated to me.
Motivation:
Although there were some basic misunderstandings by the referees, it was finally rejected with reasonable basis. The editor was fair and author friendly.
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The second review was about 127 words.
In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable
In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable
Motivation:
As the best comment may serve the first review I've got:
This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.
which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.
which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
Motivation:
Although the review times were very reasonable, the online submission service would benefit from some method of tracking the progress of the article.
Motivation:
Got a courtesy mail when the reviews took longer than expected. Disappointed to be rejected with no flaws in the manuscript, but a bunch of smaller issues. Very clear communication from the editor.