Reviews for "Nature Medicine"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: When a paper is turned down on editorial grounds, we aim to return it to the authors as quickly as possible, avoiding a time-consuming peer-review process. In making this decision we do not intend it to be a criticism of the technical aspects of the work, but rather an editorial assessment of its appropriateness for publication in Nature Medicine, based on originality of the findings, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest and potential impact on improving human health.
Immediately accepted after 2.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: The review process is fast. Even though the manuscript is rejected by editors directly, the response from the editor is quite reasonable and convincing.
10.8 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The review process was rigorous, the editor and the editorial staff were professional, courteous and very responsive. The editor was very clear in the expectations throughout, and played an active role in the process. Overall the review and editorial process was very stringent, but also transparent and overall constructive and balanced. The process improved our manuscript, which has been very well received since publication.