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 8.1
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 11.0
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 39.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Took a long time for a desk reject - sat with Editorial Board for over 5 weeks and then the minute it went to Editor was rejected. Generic letter, not helpful.
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.) 2019
Motivation: Decision was fast and even though an immediate rejection was decided we did not loose much time
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 7.4
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: Reviewers dedicated much time reviewing the manuscript. The comments are helpful to further improve the manuscript contents.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 10.1
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
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.) 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 36.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 13.0
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.) 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 32.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Took 5 weeks to desk-reject with a 1 line justification.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 12.0
weeks
12.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: It took them 4 weeks to find an editor and another two weeks to find external reviewers. The reviewers' comments were relatively straightforward and useful; it was also evident that the reviewers had a profound understanding of the subject. However, the whole process from submission to rejection was delayed (which the editor apologized for in an email) and took almost 3 months. This was unnecessarily drawn out.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
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.) 2019
Motivation: Fast rejection time, particularly since the manuscript was sent just before Christmas. Editor comments were not extremely helpful, but at least it seemed that they had looked into the manuscript.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6.4
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: One reviewer very positive, the other thought wasn't interesting enough. Member editor agreed with latter, and also seemed to incorrectly think similar work had been done. I pointed this out to editor, but got a canned response that PNAS can't provide additional feedback.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Generic recommendation to submit to specialty journal. Not sure if they read carefully, as the suggested journals / journal topics were not relevant for the manuscript.
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.) 2018
Motivation: Process at PNAS is quite opaque: for example, they do not share the identify of the Editorial Board Members.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 14.4
weeks
23.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
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.