Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Editor was unable to find reviewers and so it wasn't until 4 months later that we received news of the rejection. One of the reviews was very brief and contained factual errors.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
22.1 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The review process took more than usual timeframe but it was worth the wait as the peer-review was so detailed and helped a lot to improve the manuscript.
10.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Long revision process but after one round of revision it was accepted. Initial comments were helpful but one reviewer misunderstood the manuscript. After revisions the manuscript has improved significantly and all three reviewers were satisfied.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
10.9 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The received reviews were constructive and very helpful. We actually enjoyed the professional discussion with the reviewers. Unfortunately, Cell Reports does not offer to publish the reviews alongside the paper. The editor was professional and handled the paper well. The worst part of our experience with this journal were the waiting times. While multiple rounds of review naturally do take some time, every resubmission undergoes a technical screening before the paper is forwarded to the handling editor again. This process seems to take 2-5 days, so for multiple rounds of revision and resubmission, you easily lose half a month. While a technical screen for initial submissions and maybe even major revisions is reasonable, I feel this is unnecessary for minor revisions.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The waiting times on their website does not reflect at all the reality. Editor mentioned that the paper would need greater conceptual advance to be considered for Cell reports. They suggested transfer to iScience.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Conceptual advance of the manuscript was not great enough according to the Editorial board, got the offer to transfer to the sister Journal iScience.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2020
Motivation:
While this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 weeks is unreasonable when the journal claims a rapid process. Moreover, the editor did not respond in a timely manner to numerous inquiries. It has now been over 2 weeks since submitting the response to reviewers' comments, and the editor has not responded. Not responding is unprofessional.
17.3 weeks
29.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
My experience and the experiences of several other collaborators with the REVIEW process of Cell Reports is not very promising. Even though the Editorial Board seems to be motivated to handle the manuscript fast, the indicated time window on cell reports homepage is not very realistic. They need at least twice as much time for everything. At least two more colleagues stated similar experiences. You should also take into account that 2-3 rounds of revisions are not rare even though cell reports officially claims this would be unusual. At least in my case the first round of revisions was very helpful but the follwing rounds were just time consuming and not very helpful in my opinion. In summary, you may submit your manuscript to another journal.
2.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
very smooth process and excellent reviewer selection. it was clear that they were expert in the field and they easily captured the essence of our work.
5.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The editor was amazing! Handled the manuscript very professionally. Took the comments of the reviewers seriously but also took initiative. Very good experience.
n/a
n/a
39 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Although we submitted right before the New year holidays, I would not have expected such a long waiting time before an editorial rejection with a response as general as the following: "The findings are interesting and will be of interest and use to your field. However, for the paper to be a strong candidate for the very broad readership of Cell Reports there would need to be a greater conceptual advance over previous work, with clear new biological insight."
Even this response was yielded after a follow-up email directly to the editor!
Even this response was yielded after a follow-up email directly to the editor!
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
We submitted to this journal due to their quick review process and were extremely pleased with their fast handling of our manuscript. The initial handling by the editor was extremely efficient and the manuscript was sent for review within a week of submission. It took a total of 3 more weeks for the reviewer reports to be received which again was pretty quick as opposed to our earlier experiences.
While handling of the manuscript was definitely efficient we were disappointed with the quality of reviewer comments received. The reviewer comments indicated that several questions raised were already answered in the document/figures and others indicated conducting unnecessary experiments which could result in 4 different publications. Other queries pertaining to formatting the manuscript were well received by us. While the nature of the comments indicated that we could have communicated with the editorial office, clarified any misinterpretation of our manuscript and performed necessary experiments to strengthen our findings; we were advised against a re-submission due to the 'concerns raised by the reviewers'. The experience was definitely disheartening as we received no relevant scientific comments and got an indication that the manuscript had not bee reviewed thoroughly.
While handling of the manuscript was definitely efficient we were disappointed with the quality of reviewer comments received. The reviewer comments indicated that several questions raised were already answered in the document/figures and others indicated conducting unnecessary experiments which could result in 4 different publications. Other queries pertaining to formatting the manuscript were well received by us. While the nature of the comments indicated that we could have communicated with the editorial office, clarified any misinterpretation of our manuscript and performed necessary experiments to strengthen our findings; we were advised against a re-submission due to the 'concerns raised by the reviewers'. The experience was definitely disheartening as we received no relevant scientific comments and got an indication that the manuscript had not bee reviewed thoroughly.
8.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The second round of reviews took three months, which really at this stage of manuscript handling was an unacceptable delay.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Paper was transferred from Neuron based on fake critics. Reviewer made false presentation of the manuscript content and constructed on those fakes a fake criticism. Editor at Cell Reports send again to same reviewer even so my detailed response to the invalid arguments should have been obvious. Reviewer took this opportunity to again abuse his anonymity and produced fake more news. Most unpleasant experience of a mail-robotic editor.
2.6 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The handling editor was extremely fast. The reviewers were very knowledgeable of the topic, and although the experiments for the revision were very demanding, they accepted that we could only do some of them, and accepted the paper after the first revision. In addition, the status of the paper was very clear on the editorial manager, such that we knew one day before the official e-mail from the journal that the paper was being sent out for review. Moreover, the proofs were fast and looked amazing. It was overall a very good experience.