Reviews for "Nature Physics"
Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome | Year |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 13.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
Motivation: Two weeks and a standard desk rejection.... We (like Nature) decline a large proportion of submitted manuscripts without sending them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a strong enough case for publication in Nature Physics. I am sorry to have to say that we must take this view in the present case. |
||||||||
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 17.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
Nature Physics | 11.4 weeks |
11.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 0 (very bad) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2019 |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 12.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
Motivation: The manuscript does not demonstrate the sort of clear conceptual advance with broader implications that would demand the attention of a wider audience of physicists | ||||||||
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2016 |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 10.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2012 |
Nature Physics | 1.7 weeks |
7.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2012 |
Nature Physics | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2012 |
Motivation: I believe that this work should be published in Nature Physics, because the problem discussed there had general, not specific, character. Nevertheless it was rejected without reviewing. Eventually it has been accepted to APL in spite the fact that it contained criticism of the editors and reviewers of this journal who had accepted earlier an article containing incorrect results, and our comment was devoted just to this issue. The latter is said solely to point out the nobleness and fairness of the Editor of APL. |