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.