Reviews for "Chemical Communications"

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
Chemical Communications 3.1
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2022
Motivation: This is a continuation of a previous review. I rebutted the editorial desk rejection after which the manuscript was sent for review and it scored very well with reviewers. Thus, it is obvious that the desk rejection was erroneous and had I not argued against the initial decision, it would have been dumped and we would be figuring out what to do next. Editorial desk rejections are likely to be biased by the interests/expertise of the editor and are generally not likely to truly assess any specific piece of work.
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: This journal practices "internal assessment by editors." Standard form letter stating, "After careful evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not find your work suitable for publication in ChemComm as it does not have sufficient urgency and impact to appeal to our wide readership." To make it look more personal and at an attempt to make it appear that there was an evaluation, a sentence was added about the precursors in the chemistry. It is conceivable that only the abstract was read, and that too by a non-expert in the field. Broad/wide interest is a generic expression used "broadly and widely" that literally has no meaning, because nothing is going to interest a "vast number" of readers of any journal. Dissatisfied with this review process, and generally with the practice of desk rejections, often by those with unknown independent experience and/or expertise. Have petitioned for a reconsideration. Let us see...
Chemical Communications 6.0
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: While it took a rather long time for the first decision this appears to be due to the review of the first referee. This reviewer decided that this paper was too similar to some of our previous work and therefore did not merit publication in this journal. Although the topics were similar, the work and subsequent results were markedly different and this was agreed by both reviewer 2 and reviewer 3 who was brought in to decide on the manuscript. Some of reviewer 1's comments regarding the format of the article and figures indicated a lack of knowledge regarding the structure required for submission to this journal
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: In order to make it more personal, ChemComm includes a manuscript summary sentence in the editor's own words in the desk rejection letter. Our manuscript has been found of insufficient novelty. The summary sentence summarized only one of many experiments described in the manuscript and referenced a substance that was not discussed in the manuscript. We felt that instead of promised "careful evaluation", our manuscript has been subjected to a cursory glance that led to a false and inadequate summary of the manuscript. In our experience, sloppy and incompetent are the words to describe the initial assessment process at ChemComm
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The rejection was fast but ultimately fair.
Chemical Communications 3.0
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Nice editor
Chemical Communications n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Chemical Communications 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Chemical Communications 2.1
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Chemical Communications 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: good review