Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to reviewers, who did not seem to assess the manuscript in depth. There were factual mistakes in one review and the other review completely ignored large chunks of the manuscript. I was advised by colleagues against submitting to this journal and the prediction was the rejection will cause the editor to suggest a lower journals, which is exactly what happened. Not sure I want to try this venue again.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
We made an appeal for review. Appeal got accepted and they sent the manuscript for review and rejected within a week with two reviewers reports.
We do not feel the manuscript was thoroughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Chem E J. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
We do not feel the manuscript was thoroughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Chem E J. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
4.0 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Editorial process is very quick. Editor selected reviewers that had fairly good knowledge about the field.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Very quick response by the editor, appreciated.
3.4 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
9.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The response was "unfortunately we have to inform you that it is not suitable for publication in Angewandte Chemie as the journal publishes only reviews, minireviews, highlights, essays, and short communications (see our "Notice to Authors" on the web). Your manuscript, on the other hand, is a full-length original paper and should thus be submitted to an appropriate journal."
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
One clearly positive review with the number of suggestions to strenghen the manuscript, one "too specialized" comment. No invitation to resubmit the paper after implementing changes, requested by first referee.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
Our paper was a major improvement of a previous, rather questionable paper published in Angewandte Chemie by a big name in the field. However, it was rejected based on the fact that the topic was not interesting enough. So, why could the big name prof. publish his work? This makes no sense is is not a fair process.