Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2025
Motivation: After an initial invitation to revise and resubmit, new objections were raised. One reviewer did have interesting suggestions on further areas of improvement. However, it almost seems that the reviewer was implicitly demanding that nonchemical measurements be undertaken despite the manuscript describing a chemically based technique.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: They suggested a transfer to AIP Advances. The lack of specifics with only "does not meet the standards for publication..." is disappointing.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2021
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Drawn back
2021
Motivation: Reviews from APL tend to be not very detailed, as I've gone through and had papers accepted with them in the past. I'm always happy with their relatively quick turnaround times. However, this time we had an unreasonable request from a reviewer, who requested additional experiments (make new samples and build a new set-up for different kinds of measurements), additional simulations, additional calculations, and completely new figures to recapture all the new info. I believe this is asking too much for APL. This request would be sufficient for a completely separate and higher impact paper. We decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew our submission and decided to go elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
1.7 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Incredibly fast process all around. I've never had a paper go through the process so quickly at every stage. That being said, the review reports weren't super detailed compared to other journals, but we went through an entire round of reviews and had the paper accepted in the same amount of time it sometimes takes for other journals to even send out to reviewers the first time.
3.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
5.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
3.0 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
7.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Relative slow review process than expected. Reviewers read my paper carefully. Recommend.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
2017
Motivation: The one reviewer comments were on an ad hoc basis. The editor and reviewer failed to provide a convincing reason to reject. No comments on the scientific merit of the paper. I will not even bother to submit a rebuttal because I know it will take more time.
6.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Although the manuscript was eventually accepted, the revision process took too long. I understand the topic was new, but it took them a month to accept my revised manuscript despite the fact that the revisions were very minor.
2.6 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
3.7 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
4.0 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
3
Rejected
2012
Motivation: Original reviewer recommended rejection and clearly did not read the manuscript. Required appeals to the editor to get it re-reviewed. Eventual reviews were helpful, but we believed unduly critical. After multiple revision rounds, was ultimately referred to J. Applied Physics, where it was immediately accepted.
1.6 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
2017
Motivation: The review was fast, and the APL system gives almost live data about the state of the manuscipt if one wishes to check. Though, it was obvious that one of the reviewers had not read the manuscript I am pleased how fast they were.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation: Very quick decision. Though the editor said that the manuscript does not meet the timeliness requirement for rapid publication in this Letters Journal.
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Very positive reviewing process
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015