Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Motivation:
the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Motivation:
Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
26.0 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very responsive.
Motivation:
The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Motivation:
The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year
Motivation:
The reviewers were not very connected to the topic and the remarks could have been dealt with, but apparently a rejection was recommended.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were divided and editor did not want to advise a major revision of the paper.
Motivation:
It took a long time to assign Editor. Once Editor was assigned, the process was much quicker.
Motivation:
I was very disappointed that the journal sat with the paper for over 3 weeks before alerting us that it would not be sent out to review. I understand limited space is an issue and that editors need to be selective in what articles they will send out to over burdened reviewers, but an immediate rejection should take place in under a week so as to not waste the authors time.
Motivation:
After submission, 'Editorial Manager' (the submission and tracking portal that this journal uses) updated the status from 'Awaiting Assignment' to 'With Editor' in one day. However, the article then remained with the editor for 5 weeks, and despite two polite emails to the editor, we did not hear back about whether or not the article would even be sent to peer review. On calling the editorial office (this is acceptable in India, though probably not in many other places) the editor told us that the next several issues were full and we'd have to wait at least another month before he could make a decision on whether or not to even send it out for peer review. 9 weeks for a potential desk rejection seemed like a lot, so we withdrew.
Motivation:
The editorial assistant was very friendly and helpful along the way, the reviews were good and spot on and overall handling time was relatively brief. I have however got to criticize the submission website. It crashed a number of times while I submitted my manuscript resulting in having to start afresh. Further, it is clunky and not intuitive and generally a huge pain to operate. I was grateful to just be able to submit the revised document via e-mail and not to have to go through the whole pain of the system again.
Motivation:
We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was, at first, very satisfactory. We received a high quality report from the reviewer and the overall time spent in stage of reviewing and revising the manuscript was comparably short.
However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published.
During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received.
These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.
However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published.
During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received.
These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.
Motivation:
Great comments from competent reviewers. Editor was very responsible and quick to act. Excellent.