Reviews for "Applied Physics Letters"
| 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 | 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 |
@scirev