Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
2024
Motivation: The whole review process was relatively quite speedy. The initial response from reviewers was positive but brief. The typical request for revision after review was instead replaced with a rejection followed by a request for re-submission as a 'new manuscript'. This seemed unnecessary.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: Desk reject taking 1 month is way too long. Would not submit there again unless I have a previous ok from a handling editor already.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
10.0 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: The first round of review actually resulted in a rejection from editor but with very encouraging notes on the findings. We did a very thorough reanalysis with the helpful input from the reviewers, and have significantly rewritten the manuscript. Eventually, we appealed the decision and got a second round of review with success. The process is long but rewarding and I thank the editor for rejecting our first draft.
4.9 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2023
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: This was the 4 th paper I submitted to PNAS and was rejected at the editorial level without any reason. It is not worth taking the effort to format the manuscript according to PNAS guidelines and receive no feedback about rejection. Therefore we decided as authors not to send any of our future manuscripts to PNAS.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: Received two positive reviews requiring minor revision, but editor rejected it without reason. No comments were provided by editor, after inquiring with journal, they all they would say is that rejections are final.
3.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Our manuscript was handled quickly and we got great feedback in the first round of revisions. These comments improved the quality of the paper. We then got another round of revisions with one of the reviewers unconvinced by some of our arguments. We had to extensively rebut their comments and also mentioned to the editor that the tone and brevity of the remaining reviewer's comments made it seem like the reviewer would not objectively evaluate the paper. I don't believe the manuscript got sent to the reviewer before the editor made the decision to accept the paper. I think the handling of the manuscript and the quality of reviews were fantastic, but it was a shame we had to fight one of the reviewers the way we had to,
4.0 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: The editor and reviewers were very quick about both the first round and post-revision review process. Reviews ranged from very simple text changes to major revisions. For some of the major revisions, exact experiments were not specified so we interpreted them as well as we could and tried to address them with the most appropriate experiments given the short time frame. Otherwise, this was overall a very easy process and I would definitely submit a paper to PNAS again.
2.6 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Surprisingly quick review/handling process. I'd appreciate it.
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
8.0 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: We are pleased with the peer review process with PNAS. Comments and feedback from three anonymous reviewers have tremendously improved the quality and clarity of our paper. Two of the three reviewers provided very thorough reviews and detailed comments. The handling editor and all reviewers are very positive and polite.
n/a
n/a
43 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
2022
Motivation: Fast handling, eternal review only takes 10 days
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Do you think this review process was ethical?
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
2021
Motivation: Initial reviews were quite hostile and, frankly, unprofessional. However, we were able to secure a second round of reviews after a successful appeal to the editor.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2021
Motivation: The reviews contained some helpful comments, which will help improve the manuscript further.
5.1 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: The process was speedy and relatively painless. Reviewer 2 was extremely brief, but this was in part because they liked the paper. Reviewer 1 and the editor were detailed and constructive.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: Desk rejection with two lines of editor general comments takes 3 weeks.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time. We apologize for the delay in rendering a decision on your manuscript.

PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.

This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxxxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time.

PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.

This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: General rejection letter
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Generic rejection letter.

"Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low."
12.9 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The review process was generally well handled although considerably tedious due to the constant requirement to make very small changes to the manuscript to satisfy one reviewer. The editor and two other reviewers clearly found the manuscript of interest and the editor was gracious in allowing us to continue to submit and to ensure the concerns of the one outstanding reviewer were met. We were very pleased to be allowed to continue through the review process by a supportive editor. We were less happy to have a~1 month review process for one resubmission which contained only ~200 addtional words compared with the previous submission and an additional supplementary figure. In that same time I reviewed two manuscripts for other journals, and I know that PNAS has strict time limits on reviews. This was extremely frustrating.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
5.3 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The quality of the reviews I received was quite high and they generally made the manuscript better. However, authors should beware that the journal is experiencing a lot of delays and should expect each step to take longer than the timelines they advertise on their website.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.

This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: After three weeks at the editorial board, I received a generic one-liner reason for rejection, which says that the paper does not meet one or more requirements of the journal. I personally believe that the true reason for rejection is because the work is multi-disciplinary and the editor, who is only versed in one discipline might not have understood the true significance of the paper. In any case, they should have gotten back to me quicker.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Not as fast as promised, and with one reviewer miss-understanding the methodology (which the other reviewer commended) this was never going to cut it for PNAS.
8.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The speed of the review process was convincible and we received good comments from two reviewers that improved parts of our discussion. From the comments we received, we found that the reviewers had good knowledge on the matter discussed in the paper.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
2020
Motivation: The entire process took way too long (for which they apologized). We received only one surprisingly low-quality and short review, ignoring all the main contributions of the paper, and only claiming false points. Unfortunately it was clear that the reviewer did not even read the paper -- he/she said "no" to all the structured questions like "is the paper written well", "is the procedure explained", etc. (well, it may sound ridiculous emphasizing this, but as one may guess we did explain our procedures with lengthy formal results and mathematical proofs backing it up. So, yes, he/she did not read the paper). Aside from the poor review, we got direct rejection without considering other reviews, just saying that it is unlikely to change their mind. More disappointing was that we did not have the chance to rebuttal the false claims. 

Myself and my co-authors are senior researchers with several prior publications in different top venues. This paper in particular was the result of several rounds of reading and polishing as well as consideration of inputs from multiple high-caliber colleagues. It was an extremely disappointing experience. 
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The review comments are helpful to improve the manuscript. Also, the editor gave us a positive comments. The reviewing process was fair and constructive.

I would like to submit this journal again.