Reviews for "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America"

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 Year
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: "Although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Comments were limited, more comments would be appropriate for further evaluation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Journal took almost two months to assign an editor. Editor rejected paper after receiving one review. The review raised indicated the reviewer had not understood a few key points, but was largely positive. The whole process was non-transparent and drawn out.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2.6
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: PNAS is particular about the word limit, so thats to be kept in mind for initial submissions too. Since the review process is three-tier, we were happy that the editorial board and editorial review was completed in two days. However we were not satisfied with the comments of the reviewers. One of them gave very general comments and didn`t seem to be critical about the work. In the last, just said, "Although the subject is of fundamental interest, in the present form, this manuscript is written for a very specialized audience. "
The second reviewer somehow didn`t seem to understand our work, and questioned the very basis of our main study. Though he provided one interesting suggestion (which we also pursued later on), overall, we seem to have been unfortunate that our paper was reviewed by him!
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.4
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Reviews were reasonably fast and the comments were useful. I was overall very satisfied with submitting to this journal.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: The editor should have sent out the paper for review as a similar paper had been published in PNAS last year and we had much better results than the method.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The first round of review was quite fast (7.3 weeks)
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers

We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2

We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.4
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Uninformative PNAS desk rejection. At least it's fast.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Reviewers were obviously from two very different fields, recommending two very different sets of additional experiments. This caused rejection by the editor.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Drawn back 2017
Motivation: Two referees: one was very positive and one didn't get the points. Comments were irrelevant and flawed; yet, the editor decided to follow this referee.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.0
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.4
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 22.9
weeks
22.9
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Four lines by an editorial board member. Better than nothing... Not new enough for them. Reasonable decision time though.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 19.7
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The only criticism for the way the manuscript was handled, is that initial review took a long time, but this was likely due to the time of year (holiday season). The reviewers' concerns were valid, and appropriate. This was a direct submission, and the review process improved the manuscript.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.4
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Absolutely no feedback, despite having taken more than 3 weeks to come to this decision.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Rejected without review, but the submission process was relatively straightforward and the decision from PNAS took only about a week, so all things considered a positive experience and did not waste too much of our time.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6.1
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Initial review time was reasonable, but each subsequent period, which required evaluation of only the changes, was far too long. The 2nd revision required the addition of one panel to an existing figure and could have been evaluated in minutes to decide if it was satisfactory - instead, we waited 9 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, I made several inquiries to the editorial office (PNAS does not reveal the editor of the paper so there is no way to contact him/her directly) who told me they were following up. This went on for 4 more weeks (emails and eventually phone calls, trying to get a decision. Finally, in frustration, I contacted an editorial board member with whom I have a professional relationship and asked for advice on how to get a decision; he contacted the Editor in Chief and within 10 minutes I got a message telling me that the Board accepted the paper, and that the original editor would be informed of the decision. While we were obviously happy with the final outcome, the process took far longer than it should have based on the modest nature of the corrections made at each stage, and created significant anxiety due to uncertainty and concerns that we might get scooped due to the delay.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2011