Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.6 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Reviews were reasonably fast and the comments were useful. I was overall very satisfied with submitting to this journal.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The editor should have sent out the paper for review as a similar paper had been published in PNAS last year and we had much better results than the method.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The first round of review was quite fast (7.3 weeks)
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2017
5.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Uninformative PNAS desk rejection. At least it's fast.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Reviewers were obviously from two very different fields, recommending two very different sets of additional experiments. This caused rejection by the editor.
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2017
Motivation:
Two referees: one was very positive and one didn't get the points. Comments were irrelevant and flawed; yet, the editor decided to follow this referee.
5.4 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
4.0 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
3.4 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Four lines by an editorial board member. Better than nothing... Not new enough for them. Reasonable decision time though.
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
19.7 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The only criticism for the way the manuscript was handled, is that initial review took a long time, but this was likely due to the time of year (holiday season). The reviewers' concerns were valid, and appropriate. This was a direct submission, and the review process improved the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
4.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Absolutely no feedback, despite having taken more than 3 weeks to come to this decision.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Rejected without review, but the submission process was relatively straightforward and the decision from PNAS took only about a week, so all things considered a positive experience and did not waste too much of our time.
6.1 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Initial review time was reasonable, but each subsequent period, which required evaluation of only the changes, was far too long. The 2nd revision required the addition of one panel to an existing figure and could have been evaluated in minutes to decide if it was satisfactory - instead, we waited 9 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, I made several inquiries to the editorial office (PNAS does not reveal the editor of the paper so there is no way to contact him/her directly) who told me they were following up. This went on for 4 more weeks (emails and eventually phone calls, trying to get a decision. Finally, in frustration, I contacted an editorial board member with whom I have a professional relationship and asked for advice on how to get a decision; he contacted the Editor in Chief and within 10 minutes I got a message telling me that the Board accepted the paper, and that the original editor would be informed of the decision. While we were obviously happy with the final outcome, the process took far longer than it should have based on the modest nature of the corrections made at each stage, and created significant anxiety due to uncertainty and concerns that we might get scooped due to the delay.
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2011
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
It went smoothly. Fast and efficient.
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
very professional review process with real experts in the field and a fast and fair editorial assessment. Great layout service.
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011
n/a
n/a
37 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
PNAS gave the blanket "this study lacks broad appeal" rejection notice. Tremendously annoying to wait for five weeks and then hear that!
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
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
Rejected
2013