Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
There were four reviewers. One recommended a “Minor Revision,” while three recommended a “Major Revision.” The process went back and forth between “In Peer Review” and “Required Review Completed” several times, and the first round of peer review took a very long time. The comments ranged from simple content to issues requiring additional experiments.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected without any justification or report after three months.
Motivation:
The submission has been reviewed by one of the editors, and a reasonable report has been provided.
Motivation:
The submission was rejected after two months without any consideration
Motivation:
The decision letter suggested looking at reviewers' comments, which were not available to the authors, even after an additional request.
Motivation:
I will not do more than paste the dates of the review process
Submission received: 28 May 2024
Submission passed technical check: 31 May 2024
Editor assigned: 31 May 2024
First reviewer(s) invited: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer(s) accepted: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer report(s) received: 03 Oct 2024
(Four months to receive reviewer reports)
Submission withdrawn: 19 Nov 2025
(More than one year from receiving the reviewers' reports without making a decision)
Submission received: 28 May 2024
Submission passed technical check: 31 May 2024
Editor assigned: 31 May 2024
First reviewer(s) invited: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer(s) accepted: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer report(s) received: 03 Oct 2024
(Four months to receive reviewer reports)
Submission withdrawn: 19 Nov 2025
(More than one year from receiving the reviewers' reports without making a decision)
Motivation:
June 3, 2025: I submitted a manuscript to this journal (I had previously had a positive experience, both in terms of editorial handling and review timelines). A 1st reviewer clearly completed the review within approx. 20 days. From that point onward, I received no further information. I attempted 2 times to contact the Editor of the journal, but the system does not provide any functional correspondence channel (the Editorial Manager link leads to an error page). Direct emails to the Editor’s institutional address also went unanswered. No member of the Editorial Team/Section/Associate Editor was reachable. I interacted with Elsevier representatives (each time different) on 21 September, 15 October, 9 December, and 15 December 2025. On 23 December, I was informed that problems had occurred in the peer-review process; I was offered apologies and assured that a new reviewer had been appointed. On 12 January 2026, I received a rejection decision accompanied by only one single review report, evidently the original review that was completed back in June. Hence, from the end of June until mid-January, I waited for a peer-review process that, de facto, never took place.
Motivation:
While desk rejection is not a big issue, I find the Editor's practice highly unprofessional. I contacted Elsevier support to check whether there is an issue with the paper's status not changing after almost 7 weeks, given that 12 days was the median first decision time advertised on the Journal page. I did not ask for the Editor to be contacted.
The next day, on a saturday morning, less than 10 hrs after i made the contact with Elsevier support team, the paper was rejected without any reason. What i can say is that Editors need to be held accoutable for their behaviour. If the paper has to be rejected, why waste 2 months of the authors' time when your median first decision time advertised was 12 days? The Editor did not read the paper and, I guess, was annoyed that an enquiry was made about it. Although I heard about the journal's poor practice of selective pal publication, I felt science should prevail, but I was wrong.
What is the essence of Elsevier support if authors can ot make a polite enquiry? This is poor governance, and I find the conduct highly unprofessional.
The next day, on a saturday morning, less than 10 hrs after i made the contact with Elsevier support team, the paper was rejected without any reason. What i can say is that Editors need to be held accoutable for their behaviour. If the paper has to be rejected, why waste 2 months of the authors' time when your median first decision time advertised was 12 days? The Editor did not read the paper and, I guess, was annoyed that an enquiry was made about it. Although I heard about the journal's poor practice of selective pal publication, I felt science should prevail, but I was wrong.
What is the essence of Elsevier support if authors can ot make a polite enquiry? This is poor governance, and I find the conduct highly unprofessional.
Motivation:
A short reasoning statement would be better to give an idea on next submissions.
Motivation:
Editors said that "we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal: considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria ".
Motivation:
The editor raised an interesting point regarding comparison with at least one other existing method. The comparison would be interesting. It would have been nice had the method(s) been listed. The editor admitted that the proposed method was interesting.
Motivation:
i submitted the article, it was stuck on "with editor" status for 120 days. I sent emails nobody answered. Only after i sent emails to the IT of npj, they answer and told that they found revierersand the review will start. Didn't believed them, and Withrow my article.
Motivation:
Reviewer #1 provided balanced, professional, and genuinely constructive feedback. Reviewer #2 raised some potentially legitimate methodological concerns; however, these were severely undermined by an unnecessarily hostile, dismissive, and at times impolite tone that falls below the standards expected of academic peer review. Rather than offering constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript, the reviewer repeatedly impugns the authors’ competence, honesty, and reliability—e.g., asserting that the authors’ “carelessness … ends up calling into question a lot of other aspects of the paper,” that the reader is left wondering “if they’re this careless here, are they just as careless even in the data,” and even stating “I’m not honestly sure that they did” the transcription/glossing correctly. The reviewer also used accusatory rhetorical questions and sarcastic framing (“Well, was it sold in an auction or towed?”; “Well, is it proximal or distal?”; “Is it a different dialect after all? Or what is going on?”), and escalated from critique to disparagement (“the lack of attention to detail makes the authors appear unreliable,” “I’m not even sure if they analyzed the demonstratives correctly either,” “I have to really question this”). This approach is inappropriate and unprofessional, and it risks biasing editorial decisions by shifting the focus from correctable issues in the manuscript to blanket judgments about the authors’ reliability and good faith.
Motivation:
I think manuscripts was well fit to scope and audience. the answer i got, felt like the manuscript wasn't really read.
Motivation:
Despite the rejection, the process was fast (submitted on a Friday evening and received the decision by Monday evening). We were also advised to transfer the manuscript to NAR Cancer, with the transfer link remaining valid for three weeks.
Motivation:
The Editor's first discussion was a very swift decision, as per the open data.
Motivation:
The reviewer feedback was unprofessionally worded and editor should have done due diligence of reading both reports before rejecting. At least the process was quick.
Motivation:
Desk rejection took almost 4 weeks with a reason that at least gave the impression that the manuscript was thoroughly read by the editor/s.
Motivation:
The editorial desk rejection took 1 month with no proper feedback or reason for rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers generated their comments using AI. The editor showed a poor attitude and rejected my manuscript after I revised it in response to three reviewers.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 119.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript was assigned to an editor within two days of submission but remained under editorial review for nearly four months without a decision. Despite two follow-up emails, the only response received was that the manuscript was in the editor’s queue. After sending a final email requesting a decision by the end of the month, no reply was received, and the submission was later marked as “Withdrawn.” This duration is considerably longer than the journal’s stated median time to first decision of 42 days.
Motivation:
I understand that peer review can be slow, and that editors handle many submissions, but a seven-month period without a decision or clear communication is discouraging. As an early-career researcher, this kind of uncertainty is particularly frustrating, as it affects planning, resubmission timelines, and academic progress.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript, then one member of the editorial body contacted our corresponding author instructing that an American scholar they suggested should be added to our manuscript. They claim that the reason is for their journal's impact factor. We found this weird and unethical and thus withdrew our manuscript from the journal.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and efficient. Although the journal regarded the manuscript as being of "considerable interest", it was deemed to have insufficient priority for publication. The Editor-in-Chief has since suggested a transfer to the ATVB journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was transfered to a Nature sister journal, then get a rejection
Motivation:
We have to draw back our submission after waiting for 5 months
Motivation:
The process for rejection was slower than anticipated. Editor suggested transfer to Nature Communications, which we did.
Motivation:
The editors rejected my manuscript eventually only for the reason they could not find enough reviewer after major revision and the previous reviewer gave very positive feedback after major redivision. And it took me over one year for waiting the final rejection.
Motivation:
It was fast, and the reviews were essential
Motivation:
During my submission process, I found the Journal Finder tool useful in identifying this journal as a potential fit for my manuscript. However, my paper was desk-rejected despite its topic being closely related to previously published studies in the journal. While I respect the editorial decision, I would have appreciated clearer guidance on the reasons for desk rejection, which could help authors assess fit more accurately. Overall, the submission platform and communication were professional and efficient.
Motivation:
Too long for the first decision!!! A terrible experience
Motivation:
Desk rejection after internal editorial review. Apparently more than 50% of submissions are desk rejected. Would have been nice to have a little hint what differentiates papers being sent out.
Motivation:
Manuscript was reviewed by two people. One gave very minor revisions, all text based, the other wanted a thesis of new experiments done. Even though this was accapted with minor revisions, the editor wrote back two days later saying they changed their mind. Easily the most unprofessional journal out there.
Motivation:
Simple desk rejection for lack of space.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We submitted our paper to the journal on 2 Dec 2025. It then remained stuck in "With Editor" status for nearly three months until we withdrew it. Despite multiple enquiries, we received no meaningful information, no updates, and no resolution whatsoever. The lack of response was truly astounding.