Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
The response for desk reject was rather prompt!
4.4 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Our paper was eventually accepted after a very large revision that took many experiments and resources to carry out. This was stimulated by the fact that all the reviewers wanted many different experiments done for the paper to be a "Neuron paper". I think overall the experience was positive. The editors will do whatever the reviewers indicate, so if the reviewers indicate that you need to do a ton of work for the revision, then either you do it or you look elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The editor wrote a statement about how our study built on our previous work, but it wasn't enough of a conceptual advance. Didn't seem to have read the manuscript closely given that we are showing the current model is wrong and presenting a new one. Did recommend their transfer option to either Current Biology or Cell Reports.
6.4 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
"overall conclusions fall short of providing the kind of robust conceptual advance and new biological insights that would make the paper a strong candidate for this journal"
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Disappointing that it wasn't even sent for review
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Very quick and detailed response. Looking forward to getting rejected again in the future.
5.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The editorial decision to go against the decision of the initial reviewers 1 and 2 and seek out a fourth reviewer are very strange. The whole process lacked transparency. I am very disappointed in how the editor handled this process and am not likely to submit another paper here soon.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
There was clear evidence that the editors had read the manuscript and appreciated it, but simply felt that the novelty and scope were not suitable for Neuron.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Disagreement among reviewers led to very lengthly 9-month process of multiple reviews and repeated rebuttles. In the end, 2 positive reviewers and 1 negative reviewer, the editor sided with the negative and in the end the paper was rejected. However, during review periods decisions were reached fairly quickly (3-4 weeks) and editors were very communicative.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
5.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015