Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Immediately accepted after 2.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
It's was ok
Motivation:
Although both of peer reviewer were super respect full and professional, the process was too long
Motivation:
Well, this was an easy one, but me and my fellow colleague have had to study and revise some points.
Motivation:
Fast but generic desk rejection.
Motivation:
10 reviewers were contacten but none accepted to review the paper.
8.1 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Smooth process. Good communication by the editor. Average review comments. Would submit again.
Motivation:
No reason was given for the rejection and no comments were given.
Motivation:
High-quality reviews, supporting and helpful editor, and efficient process. I like this new journal.
Motivation:
The reviews are good and clear in their verdict, even though we waited quite long for a final decision.
Motivation:
The Editor showed great professionalism and handled the revision extremely well. The chosen reviewer demonstrated a thorough reading of the manuscript and provided several pages of quite reasonable comments which helped improve the final article.
Motivation:
The first round of the review process was done very quickly and in high-quality.
Motivation:
The process was smooth. However, the review time that has been written on the journal's website is not correct. They calculate the review time from the last submission date, and many papers are faced by "reject and resubmit". The comments were not deep.
Motivation:
Typical experience, with longer gaps in between; we were surprised that the editor wanted to check the minor revisions at the end with the reviewers, but we're through.
Motivation:
The reviews were respectfully formulated and provided thoughtful feedback. Altough one point of one of the reviewers was practically infeaseable, the other points were managable critical comments and offered many important suggestions for improvement. The first revised manuscript we submitted exceeded the word limit (due to following extensive suggestions for improvment). The journal has thereupon requested to reduce the word count to comply with the word limit (seems that they are strict with regard to this). It would be nice if the journal would provide more precise information in the "Instructions for authors" which parts of the manuscript file count for the word limit (among other things, it is said title page information is exempt from the word count but not if the abstract is part of the title page information).
The speed of the review process was OK, I would consider to publish in this journal again.
The speed of the review process was OK, I would consider to publish in this journal again.
Motivation:
Timely and fair reviews. Smooth process all around. Proof corrections were challenging as copy editors made many incorrect changes.
Motivation:
Constructive and fair reviews without any significant delay during the process.
Motivation:
Very speedy reviewing process with constructive feedback. The first two reviews were very different, I assume a third reviewer (or editor) was asked to weigh in on the reviewing process which provided more insights. The article was definitely improved by the reviewing process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers were very quick about both the first round and post-revision review process. Reviews ranged from very simple text changes to major revisions. For some of the major revisions, exact experiments were not specified so we interpreted them as well as we could and tried to address them with the most appropriate experiments given the short time frame. Otherwise, this was overall a very easy process and I would definitely submit a paper to PNAS again.
Motivation:
Smooth review process, with constructive feedback from the editor and the reviewers that significantly improved the paper
Motivation:
The review process was extremely slow and lacking in information. It was only after almost 3 months when I sent an email to the editor asking about the status of the article that I received the reviewer's comments and the process continued. However, after the first revision, the process until the publication of the first version online was very fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The review time was quite long and the time between acceptance and online publication of the article was extremely long, slow and without much information.
Motivation:
Decision was rapid and reviews were helpful in revising.
Motivation:
I took quite a while, but I can't blame the fault-seeking reviewer on the journal...
Motivation:
The review process was excellent; all reviewer comments have been helpful and valuable.
Motivation:
The review reports are beneficial and improve the quality.
The time till editorial decision of the second review round took some days, but overall I can recommend this journal.
Furthermore, the publication process has improved since the last submission to this journal and has been performed within two weeks.
The time till editorial decision of the second review round took some days, but overall I can recommend this journal.
Furthermore, the publication process has improved since the last submission to this journal and has been performed within two weeks.
Motivation:
The handling of the editor was excellent. The reviewers provided their comments very fast. The quality of the reviews were excellent and the overall communication very professional. All in all a perfect review process. Disclaimer: The manuscript was submitted as an invited paper as per invitation by the editor in chief.