Reviews for "ACS Nano"
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome | Year |
| ACS Nano | 8.9 weeks |
8.9 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: Reviewers were rather out of the field. In particular the one review report on which the decision has been apparently made had simply wrong and obviously inaccurate statements for rejection. However, the journal was not interested in hearing our side, even after a very detailed appeal. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | 3.1 weeks |
3.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: Of the two, one reviewer failed to carry out the task effectively. The comments made it clear that the reviewer had not read the Manuscript/Supporting Information, yet the reviewer opted for rejection of the manuscript. The comments questioned many aspects of the manuscript which were in fact, explained to a great extent in the main paper and supporting information. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 6.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| Motivation: It was not up to ACS nano, probably. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 5.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| ACS Nano | 3.9 weeks |
5.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 1.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| ACS Nano | 9.6 weeks |
11.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: Reviewers rated manuscript very high and provided suggestions to further improve the contents. Process overall was smooth. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | 3.7 weeks |
10.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| ACS Nano | 4.6 weeks |
4.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected | 2016 |
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| ACS Nano | 2.4 weeks |
2.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2017 |
| Motivation: The review process was rapid, and the ACS journals do a good job in this regard. However, the Editor has way more power than is ideal. In our case, one of the Reviewers suggested to publish as is and the other, to publish in a different journal. The Editor gave us an option to resubmit within 180 days after answering the second Reviewer's queries, but somehow decided to reject for now. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | 3.4 weeks |
4.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| Motivation: Review process was quick and overall manuscript quality is improved after the reviewer's comments. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| Motivation: The rejection by editor was extremel fast and the rejection letter was nice - the editor commented that the manuscript is well prepared and interesting, but probably too niche for the wide readership of ACS Nano. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | 4.3 weeks |
8.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2013 |
@scirev