Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Fast response with rejection due to lack of subject fit.
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were fair and useful. However, the review process took a long time, as did the publication of a printed version
Motivation:
The time to first review was very slow, especially for a journal that advertises itself as accelerating science. However, given the speed at which the manuscript was processed after resubmission, the delay may have been on the reviewers end more than the journal. One of the reviews had very little substance and was not very helpful but the second was generally good.
Motivation:
I missed more information on the actual reason for its rejection, but I appreciate promptly providing this information to allow submitting the manuscript to another journal without delaying too much publication times
Motivation:
Although the editor stated that the manuscripts was of interest to this journal's community, it was rejected on the grounds of: "We are receiving far more submissions than we can currently publish and therefore have to reject many good papers". This journal has published many similar articles on the same topic (many of which are of lower scientific merit in my opinion). Rejecting a manuscript based on space constraints rather than a sound scientific reason is disappointing.
Motivation:
i work hardly to publish my firs paper in this journal, unlucky it was not event send to review..
Motivation:
Very fast reviews, with middle-quality reports. I would recommend this journal to a colleague only if a fast publication is necessary.
Motivation:
After more than 6 months, reviewers were still not assigned. Furthermore, it was almost impossible to have a feedback from the editor. Very bad.
Motivation:
Long time (3 months) for the first review step, but useful feedback from reviewers.
Motivation:
High quality reviews provided in less than 1 month, even if generally 2-3 review&resubmit cycles are necessary. The manuscript quality was strongly improved, and the overall reviewing process was quiet fast. Strongly recommended.
Motivation:
Great. It is quite popular and well-known Journal.
Motivation:
I received 4 different reports, but very redoundant.
Motivation:
Editor based rejection on his/her own reading of the manuscript. No reason was given. But response time was very quick at least
Motivation:
In general handling was good. One slight critical thing could be that the overall process took quite substantial time in contrast to other journals.
Motivation:
Relatively fast decision but reason offered for rejection came from people without knowledge of the scholarship in the field.
Motivation:
It took time to publish in this journal but I think JCL consider quality and rigour in Publication.
Motivation:
Speedy process and thorough reviews and editiorial letter which taught me that the manuscript did not fit in well with the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
I received a thorough letter from the editor, one detailled, thorough, and helpful review and a second review that was merely one sentence long. It took around 3 months from submitting my revision to the acceptance, even though the manuscript was not sent out to reviewers again. Overall a good experience though.
Motivation:
Fast editorial decision. Well explained, even if we do (obviously) not agree with the result. I would recommend submitting. Friendly and helpful contact.
Motivation:
Largest problem was the time between beeing accepted and beeing published, which took almost another year. Yet, process was good and reviewer were competent.
Motivation:
The reviews were the best I've ever received. The associate editor was really helpful and acted as a third reviewer. On the other hand, it took a year to have the manuscript accepted, so it was a really long time.
7.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviews were very helpful and the overall process was very fast.
Motivation:
Article was considered too technical for the journal readership.
Motivation:
The reviewers' remarks were easy to address. When we asked the editor to reconsider, she stated the one of variable represents oversimplification of the issue. It was something we could not change by re-writing. This type of concerns should make the editor to reject the paper from the start and not to make us wait for 4 month.
7.9 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer's suggestions mostly contributed to the manuscript and the most important was that the editor gave a chance to correct. I had similar remarks regarding my paper at another journal and the editor did not give any chance to correct. Based on my experience with Prof. Palermo, he gives a chance to address the remarks, even they seems very complicated.