Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
6.4 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Although the submitted paper was rejected by jacs, the following revision based on the reviewers' comments significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
At least the decision was fast.
5.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Reasonable editorial response time. Appropriate selection of reviewers who provided thorough review and suggestions. Editorial was reasonably good and provide a 'track-changes' document which makes it easy to find potential mistakes, which is very nice. Only a single possibility to provide changes to the pdf proof results in some hesitancy to address non-essential issues. Some figures had considerable flaws in the proof and required specific comment to correct the flaw (inconsistent raster resolution, strange movement of text). Flawed figures with no comment remained flawed (minor issues). Equation editing via comment feels unsafe in context of 'only one proof iteration'. Lack of multiple proof reads should be changed. After several months of revision, more than 48 hours of proofreading should be possible.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Desk rejected for "this work lacks sufficient novelty and broad interest for JACS".
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The reviewers had decided that the work was not sufficiently novel despite that it identified key issues in the field which had been previously ignored. Perhaps the journal was not a good choice for increasing access to our field.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The review process was a bit overshadowed by the fact that the editor had to ask 12 potential reviewers to receive two reviews. The communication with the editor was very effective and constructive. As to the reviews, from the suggestions of the first reviewer it was possible to conclude that this was an expert in the field. The comments from the other reviewer were a bit out of place and one could only conclude that the reviewer was not the field expert.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The quick response was highly appreciated
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
The editor sent a rejection after "having evaluated it myself" (apparently, not having proofread the reply for typographical errors), and having deemed it unsuitable for the "broad readership of JACS and recommended sending it to JOC. Similar but more specialized (limited) chemistry was published in the same journal, which appears to have made the editor consider our work "well known" at this time. There are substantial differences in both the outcome and the potential path for that outcome in our work as compared to the published work. Therefore, it seems like the editor may have skimmed through the abstract and possibly one scheme. We did not feel that proper review of a scientific discovery was undertaken.
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Due to the quality of our manuscript, JACS reviewed, accepted, and published it within a month.