Reviews for "Cell Reports"

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
Cell Reports 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected
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.
Cell Reports 8.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The second round of reviews took three months, which really at this stage of manuscript handling was an unacceptable delay.
Cell Reports 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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.
Cell Reports 2.6
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
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.