Follow @scirev on Twitter
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 | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
| ACS Nano | 2.0 weeks |
2.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| Motivation: Very swift handling. Reviewers clearly knew topic area and offered insightful and brief comments. | ||||||||
| ACS Nano | 4.1 weeks |
5.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| ACS Nano | 4.6 weeks |
4.6 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: The journal is fast, as usual. I don't know why it sent out to 4 reviewers. Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. The reviewer even said "There are many other technical details that are unclear and inconsistencies..." without mentioning anything specific. This reviewer also rated the novelty, broad interest, and presentation to the lowest possible, quite different from all other reviewers who rated as top 5% or 15%. We decided to repeal, and gave a very detailed response. However, it was quickly rejected, without mentioning anything specific in the decision letter. "The editors have read and discussed your manuscript, comments, referee reports, and related work. I am afraid that we ultimately find that this manuscript does not reach the increasingly high thresholds that we have had to set at ACS Nano. " I guess this is a templated response. I guess this is a bad luck. I had previously good experience with this journal, and had a few publications. |
||||||||
| ACS Nano | 4.4 weeks |
8.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: Overall experience was great. All the review process was fair, and smooth. | ||||||||
| 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 |