Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editors treated the manuscript fairly. They suggested that the manuscript be transferred to Scientific Reports.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
1.7 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.