Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: This work was initially submitted to JACS and then to Chem Sci. In both cases, it was subjected to desk rejection. In the former, with a poor assessment by the Associate Editor and in the latter, the academic Editor did not bother to respond to a rebuttal. By contrast, Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis gave the work a fair assessment. The review process was robust, it was initially assessed by 4 reviewers (3 recommended minor revision and 1 recommended major revision). Due to the time needed for the revisions, the manuscript was withdrawn, revised, and resubmitted. A single review of the revised version was received and the work was published smoothly. As we suspected this work seems to have garnered quite a bit of attention, landing it in the top 10% of most downloaded articles in the Jan 2018-Dec 2019 time range. Overall, a reasonably satisfying experience. The one matter the Editors may wish to consider is the onerous job of formatting the manuscript in a template. I think they should request this once the manuscript is accepted (this becomes a major time consumption if the manuscript faces rejection from another venue as was the case here).
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The comments from Editorial Office and from the referees were in general insightful, the weakest point is that the overall process took quite long time
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
9.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
2.7 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
4.3 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: I took reviewers comments very positively and these were genuine in order to improve the manuscript. I appreciate journal policy and editor's response in this regards, and publishing team also was very helpful