Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
It seems that once you have submitted an article to one of the Nature journals and they have made a recommendation for a specific journal, your chances of submitting to another journal of your choice approach zero
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Very disappointed about Nature Geoscience and the editor (Dr. Richardson).
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
Immediately accepted after 15.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2022
Motivation:
My paper was sent to review by two reviewers, and was accepted within 7 months
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Both reviewers acknowledged the novelty and importance of the work but recognized some problems with methodology. If the editor was knowledgeable enough in the subject area, they would have been able to make a much better decision as the methodological problems were contrived and easily remedied by re-writing for clarity.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
Slow desk-rejections becoming the norm.
27.9 weeks
47.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The time elapsed is unreasonable even considering the special situation of 2020. It wasn't clear which step could have caused the delay, but from the content of the 1st round reports it was evident that at least one of the two reviewers finished their report 3+ months before it was sent to us by the editor and the other reviewer was very positive with only a few minor comments. Though the paper was accepted, it had lost its timeliness, and the manuscript was barely changed since its initial submission.
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
It took the editor a long time to find two reviewers. However, the reviewers did carefully review the manuscript and give critical yet helpful comments, so it is not a complete waste of time.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
It took a long time (23days) to get a desk rejection.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Desk rejection took 23 days. The editor appointed was, I believe, not familiar with the discipline and the reason for rejection suggested they barely read past the cover letter.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
25 days for a desk rejection! I understand that it may be difficult to give speedy decisions for all authors, but this was unacceptable. A journal that pays its staff should be able to judge the suitability of the article within a few minutes... I asked why it was taking so long, if the article was not in peer review and never received an answer... The handling editor wasn't connected to my field, by a long shot and obviously did not take any real time to read the paper.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
4.6 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The review process and editorial handling was far superior to many encountered. There was some delay in receiving the final decision after revision. The online proofing system did not work and there was some inflexibility in handling the proof corrections but overall a very positive experience.
n/a
n/a
33 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The delay, ~1 month, for rejection was disappointingly long.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The desk rejection time is disappointingly long.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
33 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
User-friendly submission portal, but a disappointingly long waiting time to hear something back from the editor (33 days).
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Editor's comments were strange. I am even not sure that this editor has read the whole paper.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Editor copy/pasted a line from summary in conciliatory decision letter. Suggested we publish in Nature Communications (which has $6K article processing fee).
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2014
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Clearly, the editor read the paper and made sound comments.