Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very fast review, the revisions were good and with constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
As expected, the revision process for Nature Communications was long. However, the reviews were of high quality overall, and our manuscript improved during the revision process.
Motivation:
The editors and reviewers gave me high quality feedback -- from the standpoint of the writing, the structure, the content, and they even suggested sources I was not familiar with. As a new academic, it was very much appreciated. My only suggestion would be to have stayed on top of the reviewers for the first round. I lost a several months time to revise because the editor was waiting for one of the reviewers, who never did provide a review. If I had received the benefit of the remaining reviews earlier, it would have been less stressful for me. Nevertheless, the individuals selected as editors and reviewers were extremely helpful, and also friendly and caring, which I really appreciated very much. It was a great process for me.
Motivation:
The executive editor offered valuable recommendations and conducted a thorough review of the manuscript's ethical aspects. These efforts significantly enhanced the manuscript's clarity and integrity. Submitting the manuscript to this prestigious journal is strongly recommended.
Motivation:
A very slow process and I think the technical peer review of the manuscript should have been done earlier in the process.
Motivation:
For me, the entire peer review process took too long. Although the paper was ultimately rejected, the suggestions from two of the three reviewers provided inspiration and were helpful for the subsequent revision of my paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers are nice to junior researcher. Provided thoughtful comments.
Motivation:
Smooth throughout.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Although my submission was rejected, based on my limited experience with journal submissions, the processing speed of this journal is relatively fast. Three days after submission, the editor responded with reminders about some formatting issues. The time taken from resubmission after revisions to receiving the reviewers' comments and the editor's decision was also within my expectations.
Motivation:
Total handling time was rather quick and the process professional. The reviewers pointed out several shortcoming and necessary improvements that led to the rejection, but helped improve the paper afterwards. Editor also seems to have engaged with the paper, so the overall decision is justified and understandable.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast, but the reviews were also very detailed and constructive. They significantly improved our paper.
Motivation:
Very quick handling time. Both reviewers critically engaged with the paper and provided important feedback while also being supportive. Editor did a great job explaining which changes are most important.
Motivation:
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
Motivation:
The paper was sent to two reviewers. Both of the were extremely careful on their revision. They made very helpful reports that improved the paper quite a lot. The overall process was fantastic and the editor was very quick in taking the required actions.
Motivation:
The reviewer made an in-depth report on my work, commenting on fundamental aspects of the paper. The whole process took nearly two months and the reviewer seems to be someone who has a deep knowledge on the subject. I had a very positive experience.
Motivation:
Within a month, we received the reviewers' reports, so I think the process was quite smooth. We were disappointed to see the paper rejected after reviews, and did not find all reviewers' comments reasonable (for instance: recommendations to cite our previous but unrelated work). However, I understand the editor's decision based on these reports.
Motivation:
I found the review reports of good quality, they helped to improve the paper. The process was a bit slow, that would be my only feedback. When asking for status updates, the editorial office was responsive, which was nice.