Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The review process was exceptionally fast. The quality of review was top notch.
62.4 weeks
62.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
A long time was taken (more than a year). No mistakes were found. No reason was given for rejection and reviews did not provide an opinion of the scientific value of the paper.
43.7 weeks
43.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
There were two reports, one positive, one negative. I quote the negative report below:
"I took a detailed look at the paper. I find it rather technical. [15-words summary of the paper deleted.] Although the authors develop some new methods to do so, I think it is not appropriate for the Advances of Mathematics."
This is not a report, it is - at most - a quick opinion. One can reject a paper because it doesn't fit into the scope of a journal, or because one considers it not to be good enough for the journal, one can even reject it for being too "technical" for a general math journal
(although this is really a matter of taste - virtually all non-trivial math papers are technical), but it should not take 10 months to do so. By acting in this way, the editorial board "burned" my paper. Too much time had passed, I started giving talks on the results,
the preprint had been cited half a dozen times, there was not enough time to send it to another high end journal with an equally long decision time, with the risk to get it again "almost published" (one report, much longer than the one quoted, was after all positive), i.e. rejected the result would then never appear in print at all.
"I took a detailed look at the paper. I find it rather technical. [15-words summary of the paper deleted.] Although the authors develop some new methods to do so, I think it is not appropriate for the Advances of Mathematics."
This is not a report, it is - at most - a quick opinion. One can reject a paper because it doesn't fit into the scope of a journal, or because one considers it not to be good enough for the journal, one can even reject it for being too "technical" for a general math journal
(although this is really a matter of taste - virtually all non-trivial math papers are technical), but it should not take 10 months to do so. By acting in this way, the editorial board "burned" my paper. Too much time had passed, I started giving talks on the results,
the preprint had been cited half a dozen times, there was not enough time to send it to another high end journal with an equally long decision time, with the risk to get it again "almost published" (one report, much longer than the one quoted, was after all positive), i.e. rejected the result would then never appear in print at all.