Reviews for "Physical Review A"

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
Physical Review A 8.7
n/a 2 1
Motivation: Referee 1 did not understand the paper in a fashion I had never seen before in my life, and did not recommend publication. Referee 2 stated that the paper was suitable for publication in the journal, but advised us better motivate the problem. The editor rejected the paper after the first round. I believe neither of the referees gave us useful feedback, since the report from Referee 1 was quite detailed, but based on his completely mistaken understanding of the paper; and the one from Referee 2 was very brief, with no useful comments included. The same paper got recommended for publication in another journal with equivalent impact factor, better referees and faster editorial processing.
Physical Review A n/a n/a 3.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor wrote that "they accept only papers that are scientifically sound, important to the field, and contain significant new results in physics. We judge that these acceptance criteria are not met by your manuscript". I am sure that he did not see the paper carefully and did not understand the novelty of our work.
Our work was soon accepted in other peer-reviewd journal and was significantly cited after publication. More surprisingly, the work based on our model was recently published in Physical Review A. So I did not understand that why our work was not significant and how similar kind of work was publishable in PRA later?
Physical Review A 5.3
n/a 1 3
Motivation: The main bad thing with the reviewing process is that the editor and his assistants cannot find qualified reviewers. After first round of reviewing the referee said "I think that the topic is relevant and that an analysis of TM modes in
nonlinear planar waveguides would be interesting for the readers of
Physical Review A. Also, I think that the obtained results are
trustworthy. However, in my opinion the article is poorly structured,
has a tedious presentation, it lacks "physics..."
The other referee also evaluated the results favourably. But then the referees began to discuss side issues like poor structure, tedious presentation and so on. The outcome of their work is rejecting.
Physical Review A 3.0
n/a 1 4
(very good)