Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Editors suggested transferring our paper to another Cell Press journal. The options included Cell Reports, Current Biology, and Neuron.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
16.7 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall very positive experience. The first round of review was somehow slow, in part, because our topic was a bit exotic. Editor and production team very responsive
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast review. Make sure your files are small enough for the initial submission, total compiled PDF that you submit must be 20 MB, this includes all files including any associated manuscripts you are submitting for the editor's information. We had a delay of a few days as we didn't understand how many of the different files we needed to resize and the information was not made clear during the submission process.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very reasonable comments. The paper was seriously considered, however the novelty was not at the level of excitement for Cell. I wish the immediate rejection would not take full 2 weeks. Also we received the decision letter only after the follow up email.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Editor seems not familiar with the topic.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Editor wrote a nice letter. They were unsure how 'interesting' our story was: so it was sent for 'informal external review' to one expert. That expert suggested rejection, so the paper was not sent for formal review. Though disappointing, it was at least decent to have had the Editor consider our ms carefully.