Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reasonably fast rejection time without peer reviewing, thus minimizing the lost time before submitting to another journal.
Motivation:
It took 2 months for the editors to find reviewers willing to review the paper.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
Motivation:
Very fast time to rejection of the case report submitted
Motivation:
Very fast review process (comments from reviewers and first decision after about just 1 month)
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was eventually accepted, the revision process took too long. I understand the topic was new, but it took them a month to accept my revised manuscript despite the fact that the revisions were very minor.
Motivation:
This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
One reviewer (out of three) has apparently not read the manuscript. Other reviewer reports were somewhat helpful.
Motivation:
Fast rejection, no reason given.
Motivation:
The review process took a long time relative to other journals of similar quality. At each stage the manuscript had to pass through a quality check that significantly delayed the review process and required all or most of the files to be uploaded again.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
In my opinion, the review process took too long. After almost four months of "under review" status, I contacted the editor asking what was going on. The reviews were sent to me about a week after my query, so it seems it was necessary to ask the editor to urge the reviewers. Received reviews were very accurate and it was clear the reviewers read and reviewed the manuscript carefully. The publishing process after acceptance was quick and well managed.
Motivation:
The process was fast which is good. On the other hand the manuscript has been invited which made this decision to reject without review very surprising.
Motivation:
2 months for a first response
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewing process was too long for a relatively straightforward rejection.
Motivation:
Reviewing time could have been faster for a relatively straightforward rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers were good and had valid suggestions. The editor was terrible, the overall handling of the manuscript took ages and we had very simple changes to make. It seems like the edito forgot or did not push the reviewers for answers to our comments. Also, after the second revision the reviewers were satisfied but the editor himself decided we had to repeat several experiments. We repeated the experiments, nothing changed in the manuscript or conclusions and still took another 3 weeks to get an answer, and then another 2 weeks for the final acceptance. Every week we e-mailed the editor asking for updates, most times got no reply. Unacceptable that it took so long, will never submit to NatComm again!
Motivation:
Poor initial assessment. The argumentation for rejection was scientifically incorrect (claiming that the structures we report are known, which is not true).