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 8.3
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
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.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2013
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2.9
weeks
2.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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.
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.) 2013
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2011