Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast and clear.
Manuscript under submission - 24th February 26
Manuscript received - 24th February 26
Editor assigned - 25th February 26
Manuscript under consideration - 25th February 26
Editor Decision Started - 5th March 26
Manuscript under consideration - 6th March 26
Decision sent to author - 6th March 26
Manuscript under submission - 24th February 26
Manuscript received - 24th February 26
Editor assigned - 25th February 26
Manuscript under consideration - 25th February 26
Editor Decision Started - 5th March 26
Manuscript under consideration - 6th March 26
Decision sent to author - 6th March 26
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Generic rejection email with transfer to other journals offered
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Editors said that "we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal: considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria ".
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The manuscript was transfered to a Nature sister journal, then get a rejection
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very annoying to wait a full month for a desk reject
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
A fast editorial decision, a transfer to other journals of the Nature portfolio was offered.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0.0 / 5.0
1.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
Both reviews were written by reviewers from a different field than our paper, which made mostly methodological comments, as a result these were mostly irrelevant. To show an analogy, it is like writing a paper on petrology, and getting reviews from a soil specialist. Awkward.
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.7 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
One gave an acceptance and two reviewers raised novelty problems with compliments about the solid and robust experimental results. Editors play an important role as judges. They accepted our paper.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Received a very friendly letter, showing the editor had taken a good look at the manuscript.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.3 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Considering the number of manuscripts received by the journal we were surprised by the speed of the process. Reviewers made fair comments that helped improve the manuscript. The copy editing phase was not as smooth with a lot of mistakes being added by the editorial team during the galley proof stage. Had we not examined these proofs quite closely, the paper might have been published with these issues.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The total time it took for the manuscript to be rejected without being sent for review was too long, in our opinion (1 month). However, the Editor, in the rejection letter, provided an objective explanation for this long wait. More importantly, in the rejection letter it was evident that the Editor had taken the time to read through our manuscript and had given it some thought before their final rejection, for which we were thankful.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Rejected
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, our decision is based on the paper’s appeal to Nature’s broad audience, rather than a judgment of its technical robustness. "
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The process was reasonably quick, particularly since we submitted on the Easter weekend. I think they read and thought about the manuscript and gave a fair, albeit disappointing response. I greatly appreciated that they did not give just a boiler plate response and instead provided useful guidance.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Typical desk rejection, suggested to submit to Nature Communications
10.0 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Altogether, this was a positive experience. The reviewer comments were very helpful to improve the quality of our work, and also the editor was helpful and responsive. The production process after acceptance, however, was very annoying and involved a lot of back and forth with Nature's production team, which also caused a rather long delay between acceptance and publication.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
After careful review of the work, we regret to say that we are unable to offer to consider it further.
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of the findings, or their value to others working in this area.
At this stage, we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal, and we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of the findings, or their value to others working in this area.
At this stage, we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal, and we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1.0 / 5.0
0.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
On the whole, the review process was very very very slow. The editor decided to send for review after 45 days. And negative advice was send back in two weeks. So unbelievable. It took almost two months.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection with transferal suggestion to Nature Communications.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.6 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was smoother than we expected. The editor was very responsive and professional. The manuscript was very much improved than the initial state, with an increase of 60% figures.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
we recognise the potential interest of your findings for specialists. However, I regret that we cannot conclude that the paper offers the sort of particularly striking new insights with far-reaching implications that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of the broad scientific readership of Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Frustrating not to get a review.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Exact reason:
Now that we have had a chance to examine your manuscript in detail, I very much regret to have to tell you that we do not feel able to further consider it for publication in Nature.
It is Nature's policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
In this case, while we are sure that your data will be of interest to others in your field, we do not feel that the conclusions that can be drawn at this stage represent a conceptual advance sufficient to justify publication in Nature, rather than in a specialty journal.
I regret I can't convey more positive a message on this occasion, especially given the time elapsed -- for which I renew my sincere apologies, yet I do hope that you will consider Nature when preparing other manuscripts in the future.
**Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
All Nature Research journals are editorially independent, and the decision to consider your manuscript will be taken by their own editorial staff. For more information, please see our manuscript transfer FAQ page.
Now that we have had a chance to examine your manuscript in detail, I very much regret to have to tell you that we do not feel able to further consider it for publication in Nature.
It is Nature's policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
In this case, while we are sure that your data will be of interest to others in your field, we do not feel that the conclusions that can be drawn at this stage represent a conceptual advance sufficient to justify publication in Nature, rather than in a specialty journal.
I regret I can't convey more positive a message on this occasion, especially given the time elapsed -- for which I renew my sincere apologies, yet I do hope that you will consider Nature when preparing other manuscripts in the future.
**Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files. This link can be used only once and remains active until used.
All Nature Research journals are editorially independent, and the decision to consider your manuscript will be taken by their own editorial staff. For more information, please see our manuscript transfer FAQ page.