Reviews for "Nature Climate Change"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: I feel the decision was subjective
6.1 weeks
26.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The review process was long and thorough. Most of the reviewer comments were constructive and served to improve the manuscript. There was an additional round of editorial comments at the end.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: The process is too slow to get a capricious, subjective desk rejection.

"We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like."
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: Quick immediate rejection but reasons were unclear.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The article was rejected on the basis that the editor(s) were: "not persuaded that your paper provides the kind of substantial conceptual advance in our understanding of the drivers of climate change concern and action more generally that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of researchers across the breadth of the climate community"

This was the most likely to reject the manuscript on my list of potential outlets for the paper so the decision did not come as much of a surprise.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
41.0 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
0
0
Rejected
2016
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
2014
Motivation: It is a very quick, very thorough review process and I was very impressed by it all at every stage
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
2014
Motivation: Review period was reasonable in length however it is questionnable whether the reviewers were the most appropriate - this seems to be a particular concern for social science papers.
5.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
2
Rejected
2013
Motivation: Editorial management: excellent.
Review quality: very poor. The paper has been rejected because results are not consistent with reviewers beliefs. Unfortunately, reviewers have not provided any scientific argument and reference to support their opinion. Overall, not even a single suggestion has been provided to improve the analysis and the manuscript.