Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
4.7 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Communication with the editorial office was quick and, to our surprise, a single revision was sufficient. In general, the review process helped to improve our manuscript and prevent possible misconceptions through marginal adjustments. However, the effort for the direct responses was substantial as the submission was evaluated by four reviewers, out of which one was clearly outside the research field and another one challenged every single claim and provided 17 major requests (despite rating our work as highly significant). Given this effort, we would have appreciated it if the final publication would have been accompanied by the peer review correspondence.
4.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The initial reviews were part good and useful and part unrealistic. For instance, some errors in the manuscript were correctly reported. However, a large study was also requested as a revision, which would be too big even for multiple papers. A substantial part of the manuscript might not have been properly considered at all, as an obvious but substantial mistake was found by the authors in the resubmission process but was not reported by the reviewers. Perhaps the reviewers did not have expertise in this field of subject? In addition, some rather abitrary reference was requested, which did not really fit to the content of the manuscript but nevertheless included - could be bad practice, if it was a self-reference.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
7.1 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Despite three rounds of revision, the initial manuscript was outright rejected. However, the reviewers were understanding in their first reviews and recommendend to put some more work into the manuscript. This finally caused three more rounds of revision (resubmit, major and minor revisions) and finally the acceptance. I personally think that the paper improved a lot after the initial rejection, but the comments from the major revisions did not contribute to a significantly better paper. The time scale from submission to acceptance was decent, though.
4.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The first reviews were quite okay - one reviewer wanted to publish as is (or minor revisions) and the other decided against publication. In the second round, only a single report was sent, which stated that the revisions were made successfully. The other revisions were rather technical and could have been condensed.
17.4 weeks
17.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
5.7 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
My only complaint is the long time in review, much worse than other ACS journals in my experience.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround, fair assessment for why it didn't fit with the journal.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The reviews covered the whole acceptance spectrum, all mostly helpful. One suggested minor revision, another rejection (but actually suggesting some changes), the third one major revision but with only three comments, one of them we did not agree and justify it in the letter to the editor. We did the changes and got it accepted without major issues.
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
excellent