Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2011
Motivation:
This was a theoretical paper (which are known to be hard to push through). I found Reviewer 1 very good. In a polite way, s/he appreciated the things s/he found good, and also pointed out the gaps in the paper. This served a lot.
I felt Reviewer 2 acid. In a very ironic way, s/he picked at everything - in a part of these, however, s/he was right. This was useful but the way s/he behaved, was degrading.
Altogether, these reviews was very useful for me because I could re-elaborate the paper which became much stronger.
The whole editorial process was smooth and rapid, the people working at PNAS was polite and elegant. Thank you.
I felt Reviewer 2 acid. In a very ironic way, s/he picked at everything - in a part of these, however, s/he was right. This was useful but the way s/he behaved, was degrading.
Altogether, these reviews was very useful for me because I could re-elaborate the paper which became much stronger.
The whole editorial process was smooth and rapid, the people working at PNAS was polite and elegant. Thank you.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2011