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 editor said that was not perfectly fitting with the journal for the lack of molecular mechanism. So s/he suggested to transfer it to NAR Cancer because better fitting for our topic.
5.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The editor was very professional and punctual.
Two reviewers did constructive comments, while the third one was non understanding basic statistical analyses and was asking experiments already performed in other studies from our group described in the introduction. Further, this reviewer was really unprofessional making jokes in brackets.
But for the rest everything was fine.
3.4 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: editorial process and review process are very quick
3.4 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
4.1 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: NAR receives far more manuscripts than it can consider for publication, and therefore all submissions are subjected to preliminary review by Executive Editors to assess their suitability for the journal. Detailed peer reviews are then sought for only a fraction of the manuscripts submitted. All manuscripts are evaluated relative to other recent submissions. In this case, I appreciate the effort that went into your research and the preparation of this manuscript. However, NAR prioritizes studies that focus on obtaining deep insights into molecular mechanism. Your manuscript has a broad focus and is primarily descriptive, making it more appropriate for a journal with a different specialization.

We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Strange, possibly biased and short 1/3 page reviews
2.7 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: We have been happy with the reviewers comments, which was not only quick but also extremely relevant. It seemed that all 3 reviewers had knowledge on the experimental aspect and data analysis work too. The editorial decision was prompt and efficient. We have also been satisfied with the production and proofreading team. Our paper was online in three weeks after acceptance. Apart from the HEAVY open access fee that is charged, our overall experience with NAR has been positive and we are happy to have our paper published in such a reputed journal.
2.9 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
4.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2017
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2017
2.6 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2017
4.4 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
4.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2011
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2013
Motivation: All the process was extremely rapid and editor's decision reflected referee's comments. Referees were very fair and constructive.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
2
Rejected
2013