Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
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
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.
I would like to submit this journal again.
7.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Overall great experience. The second paper I've published with PNAS and so far they have both been nice experiences. I would definitely submit another article to them again in the future.
3.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The review process was overall good and efficient. We got comments from two reviewers, both liked the idea of the paper but recommended a major revision that required a lot of effort from our side. The reviewers fully understood the paper and their comments really made the paper better. Overall, great review process, fast and efficient.
5.0 weeks
11.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The first round's decision for revise & resubmit was based mostly off of a single (though incredibly thorough) reviewer ("reviewer #1"). The second round included one more simple reviewer and an even more thorough request for revision from reviewer #1. The modifications made to our submission due to this reviewer #1's comments undoubtedly made the paper significantly better off. All in all the PNAS submission process, though stressful at times, was a great success!
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
99 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
It took 14 weeks for the editor to determine it was not a good fit. We requested updates several times through the review process and were ultimately told 12 weeks into the process that the editor had stopped responding to emails. Completely unprofessional management.
8.1 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
11.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
39 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.
n/a
n/a
6 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
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Reviewers dedicated much time reviewing the manuscript. The comments are helpful to further improve the manuscript contents.
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
10.1 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Took 5 weeks to desk-reject with a 1 line justification.
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
11 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.
6.4 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
3 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.
n/a
n/a
11 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.
14.4 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
6 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"
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Comments were limited, more comments would be appropriate for further evaluation.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018