Reviews for "Nature Geoscience"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
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 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
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 12.0
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 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
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 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
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 22.0
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 22.0
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 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
n/a n/a 25.0
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.
4.6
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The delay, ~1 month, for rejection was disappointingly long.
n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The desk rejection time is disappointingly long.
n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
n/a n/a 33.0
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 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
n/a n/a 6.0
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 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
n/a n/a 8.0
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 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected 2014
n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Clearly, the editor read the paper and made sound comments.