Reviews for "Cancer Cell"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 4.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: A prompt response from the editor with comments pertaining to the study definitely helped us during this submission. The editor highlighted key points from our study and even suggested relevant sister journals wherein our work would be better appreciated. The experience was definitely worth the rejection.
n/a 3 2
Drawn back 2013
Motivation: The editor should have outlined concerns that had to be addressed early on and determined the feasibility of our performing those experiments in a timely manner. One of the reviewers had persistent (and often unreasonable) concerns that the editor neither discounted nor supported, thus leading us on a 2 year saga.