Reviews for "Applied Physics Letters"

Review this journal Show journal page
Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Applied Physics Letters 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 3
(good)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters n/a n/a 2.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Applied Physics Letters 1.7
weeks		 1.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters 3.3
weeks		 3.4
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2018
Applied Physics Letters 5.1
weeks		 7.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2018
Applied Physics Letters 3.0
weeks		 4.7
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2017
Applied Physics Letters 7.9
weeks		 10.3
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2017
Motivation: Relative slow review process than expected. Reviewers read my paper carefully. Recommend.
Applied Physics Letters n/a n/a 12.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Applied Physics Letters 5.7
weeks		 5.7
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters 6.0
weeks		 10.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters 2.6
weeks		 2.9
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2015
Motivation: This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
Applied Physics Letters 3.7
weeks		 5.4
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2017
Motivation: The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
Applied Physics Letters 4.0
weeks		 10.9
weeks		 n/a 1 0
(very bad)		 3
(good)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters 1.6
weeks		 1.6
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 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.
Applied Physics Letters n/a n/a 4.0
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.
Applied Physics Letters 2.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014
Motivation: Very positive reviewing process
Applied Physics Letters 3.0
weeks		 3.7
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2015