Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After 7 months, the paper was rejected with no real feedback on quality. I sent several emails after 3 months with no response.
17.4 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers were a bit harsh but fair. The editorial process was terribly long and frustrating.
Motivation:
Remarks of one of the reviewers indicated that he was not familiar with the statistical method used in the manuscript (information-theoretic approach). Nevertheless, the reviewer criticised the statistical analysis and even made an incorrect statement about one aspect of it (interpretation of the odds ratio). Two editors, who rated the manuscript, did not dismiss the obviously untrue comments on the statistics and the manuscript was rejected. There were other reasons for rejection, too, and I do accept them, but the statistical issues should not have been mentioned among them and/or perhaps a third review could have been invited.
Motivation:
The quality of the review for this manuscript was of a high quality with the reviewer even going to the detail of matching protocol procedures to the final manuscripts methods to ensure the quality of the submission was high.
Motivation:
The paper was transferred from another NPG journal where it was rejected after review and the reviewers transferred with it. The deputy editor personally handled the transfer, was responsive, and accepted the manuscript after reading the revised copy and the responses to reviewers without sending it out for further review. It was a seamless transfer and we're happy with the process at SR.
Motivation:
The manuscript was simply rejected. Thus rejecting for future submissions with revisions. Rejection is informed immediately without any delay.
Motivation:
My experience with Nature Communications was the worst I've had out of the 13 different journals I have published in. Initially, there was a delay in the review of our manuscript because they could not track down the third reviewer they selected. Then after waiting another month they still could not get the reviews so they sent us low-quality reviews. One simply said accept as is, the other literally stated they did not read the whole paper because they didn't like it. Our handling editor had no familiarity with the subject matter and was therefore unable to address the integrity and quality of these reviews or provide their own opinion. We then successfully appealed for a revised manuscript to be sent to a third reviewer. After almost 3 months, we received two more reviews from the two original reviewers, which contained almost the exact same responses. This was curious given that the sole request in our appeal was to send our paper to a new reviewer. But we decided not to pursue the issue further. Ultimately, we were failed by the handling editor, who should have done a better job at managing the chosen reviewers and inspecting their reviews for quality and potential bias before accepting them.
Motivation:
The time from submission to acceptance was acceptable and the quality of the feedback from reviewers was high.
Motivation:
- The process took 11 months in total, thus 7 months the first revision round and 3.5 months the second. The editor didn't replay to any email and only due to the elsevier chat was possible to obtain updates.
- The final decision arrived one week after we asked to withdraw the manuscript. Even if we officially asked to withdraw the manuscript (3.5 months after the 2nd submission) the editor didn't withdraw the submission but reject the manuscript.
- The manuscript was rejected why we didn't run a new -minimum- 2 years experiment, different in respect the current one. However, the editor gave us only 3 weeks to submit the revised version (minor revision was requested).
- The reviewer of 2nd round had the number #3, but in the 1st round we got the comments of reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. The editor never replay if the reviewer #3 was the same as reviewer #1 or #2. Therefor we assume that was one of the first two. It could be that was a third reviewer that we never got his/her comments.
- The final decision arrived one week after we asked to withdraw the manuscript. Even if we officially asked to withdraw the manuscript (3.5 months after the 2nd submission) the editor didn't withdraw the submission but reject the manuscript.
- The manuscript was rejected why we didn't run a new -minimum- 2 years experiment, different in respect the current one. However, the editor gave us only 3 weeks to submit the revised version (minor revision was requested).
- The reviewer of 2nd round had the number #3, but in the 1st round we got the comments of reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. The editor never replay if the reviewer #3 was the same as reviewer #1 or #2. Therefor we assume that was one of the first two. It could be that was a third reviewer that we never got his/her comments.
Motivation:
the reviewers had constructive remarks. However, the manuscript was too long with too many details on the numerical method and its validation. To my point of view, it was not justified to reduce the length of the manuscript since it was a complete work useful for other researchers.
Motivation:
Experience was positive. Editorial board was professional. After rejection, we submitted the manuscript to another journal
Motivation:
Both reviewers raised mostly similar concerns. Although we can address most comments relatively easily, thereby improving the manuscript as requested by the reviewers, the editor chose to reject the manuscript mostly basing his decision on a too low sample size.
Motivation:
The editors were rapid in their decision to send the article to review. The article was sent to relevant referees who offered constructive criticism and highlighted valid points of the study which needed further analysis. We were surprised to receive major revisions given the scope of the work which was actually necessary; however this is only semantics. On revision of the article, both editors and referees were punctual with their final comments, allowing the article to proceed in to publication in a timely manner.
Motivation:
Review process was streamlined and the editors answered all queries promptly. Referees offered meaningful and constructive critical analysis of the manuscript. As few changes were necessary, both editors and reviewers were able to rapidly turn over the second review, and the publishing editors were equally swift in their online publication of the article.
Motivation:
We were surprised that the journal immediately rejected the article on the basis of the study not being in the remit of the journal, as the article involved quantification of anatomy with inferences on the evolution and function of the anatomical units in question.
Motivation:
Editorial process was rapid and well informed, sending the manuscript to two referees with clear understanding of the subject matter. Reviews were helpful and punctual, expediting publication of the article following very minor revisions
Motivation:
The process from this journal is exactly like a journal should operate. My paper was given two reviews and the reviewers got enough time to give me excellent reviews. They were long, but thorough, and significantly improved the writing of the manuscript. It was clear that the paper was considered thoughtfully. The subject editor also gave great advice and helped with content as well as minor editing details to fit the style of the journal. The first decision was 'minor revisions'. Given the requested revisions were mainly in the writing and clarity of methods, I would agree with that outcome. They also gave plenty of time to make the revisions, and the final acceptance was quick. I had a great experience at this journal and will definitely submit there agian
Motivation:
Really long for a desk reject... given other people's experiences I will skip nature neuro in the future unless I'm really sure it will go through. Could definitely have gone out for review somewhere else by now.
Motivation:
The rejection letter from the EIC came across as rude and it was disappointing to receive feedback about not reporting long-term adverse events when a significant section of the manuscript was devoted to adverse event and long-term follow-up.
Motivation:
Both the editorial team and reviewers were very helpful in the development of this manuscript.
Motivation:
While the review process for this manuscript was quite long it was due to the original narrative review being split into two literature reviewers requiring significant amounts of work from the editorial team, reviewers and authors. The overall outcome from this review was fantastic.
Motivation:
The journal was very slowly and pree review process was very time consuming.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 134.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
For four months, the manuscript status has been “editor assignment pending,” meaning that it was not even reviewed. I have sent emails about my concern to the EO periodically. The officer said that he contacted the editor, but no reply from the editor. In addition, several other emails I sent to EO was ignored for about a month. I also sent an email directly to the editor, but I did not get a reply from her, either.