Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.6 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
5.0 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
All feedback from the referees was very useful. One of the reports included a comprehensive list of comments to be addressed, and although they took work to implement, the revised manuscript came out much stronger and clearer than its initial version. The reviewing process was very efficient, the referees were helpful, and the whole process was extremely fast and efficient.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
8.3 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
An appeal with Divisional Associate Editor was filed, given unsubstantiated declination by the Editor, that conflicted with recommendations of the reviewers. It too resulted in a declination. Communication read like a standard template.
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
One of the referees showed that they did not understand how things work in nonlinear quantum optics and requested a type of analysis that had already been shown to not work in my manuscript. They noted that some of the results were remarkable, but even so should have been culled from the manuscript.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
1.1 weeks
1.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The editor's handling was fast. Our manuscript was quickly sent out for review. The referee comments and editor's final decision were fair and justified.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
The editor rejected our manuscript after 3 days of submission. This is a very fast response speed, and we were able to re-submit to Physical Review series. We believe that the editor's decision was fair and justified.
5.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
I originally thought that PRL would offer a lightning-fast reviewing process. While this is partially true, the entire process was drawn out because (1) we submitted right before the busy (and holiday-infested) month of December, (2) because 6 authors had to agree on changes to the manuscript, which meant that revisions took longer, and (3) because one reviewer insisted on a second round. PRL's editorial actions are very well reflected in their online system, so that one is always aware of the whereabouts of the manuscript and reminders having been sent out to the referees. So although the entire process took half a year, I am still impressed.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
The review was returned in one day, with a rejection. However, a year later, another paper in the same area (and equally interesting results) was published.
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
Journals whose goal is to disseminate results of general relevance for a given community (physics in this case) have a very thin line to decide what is relevant and what is not. This is unfortunate, but true. The rejection of our paper was not based on scientific considerations, since the referees agreed out results were correct, but based on their personal judgement on whether they were relevant enough or not. This is of course inevitable in this kind of peer reviewed process