Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation: Reasonably fast, but a bit disappointing that they had us go through the Initial Quality Check for figures using this dreaded Editorial Manager system three times (a big time investment) — before telling us, two weeks later, that they had barely looked at the manuscript and rejected it anyway for "not having the broad appeal needed for PNAS".
8.3 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
2012
Motivation: The editor gave a one sentence justification for rejection, saying that the paper was not a strong enough contribution to the literature, despite having previously given an R&R decision and us fulfilling all the requests made by the reviewers.
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
2013
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
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.
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
2
3
Rejected
2011