Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The review process took so long although the paper was a short communication type. The editor made a decision based on just one of the three reviewers' views and opinions that were not supported by any reference. I think the editors might want to consider more carefully the obvious "conflict of interest" raised by some reviewers before making the final decision.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Rejected immediately due to not broad enough appeal, but the process was quick so we didn't have to wait to long. Offered the option to transfer our paper to another journal within the Nature Publishing Group (Scientific Reports). Overall a smooth and efficient system, though the outcome was not what we hoped.
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
7.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Three high-quality reviews (a bit delayed over christmas).
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
13.0 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
8.7 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
6.5 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.