Reviews for "Nature Photonics"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
50 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: The editor politely rejected the manuscript, without sending to external peer reviewers. This is not unusual for high impact journals, however, the decision for editorial rejection took almost two months. This is a long delay which was likely avoidable and impacted negatively on the novelty of the results presented in the manuscript.

Editor's response:
"The unfortunate fact is that 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 sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space."
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: It is a quick rejection, not painful. "The unfortunate fact is that 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 sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space."
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
2017
Motivation: The editor failed to notice scientific and technical errors in the comments by one of the reviewers. His decision was based on this incorrect information. Clearly, the reviewer was unaware of the field. The speed of reviews was much better than I had expected.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016