Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "RSC Advances"
| 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 |
| RSC Advances | 7.6 weeks |
8.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| Motivation: All the reviewers comments were really helpful and justified. Overall I am very satisfied about the review process and the outcome. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 9.3 weeks |
12.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| Motivation: RSC Advances had Article Processing Charges of ~750 GBP. We were forwarded to this journal by the Editor of Green Chemistry, who rejected our manuscript. After slight modifications, we submitted the manuscript and got two reviews after two months waiting. One quite positive and reasonable, another borderline with little substantiation. We revised the manuscript, which was accepted after 3 weeks and published after another week or so. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 9.3 weeks |
12.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| Motivation: Originally we submitted the manuscript to Green Chemistry, but it was rejected by the Editor for "low green advance", who suggested to transfer it to RSC Advances. We agreed with the transfer and the manuscript was eventually published in the latter journal. During the review process one Reviewer (out of 2) was not very positive, so we had to rebut his arguments. The Editor agreed with our stance. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 12.1 weeks |
12.3 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| RSC Advances | 4.0 weeks |
4.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| RSC Advances | 2.6 weeks |
4.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| RSC Advances | 3.9 weeks |
5.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| RSC Advances | 3.0 weeks |
3.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: The review process was smooth. The payment process after acceptance was a bit cumbersome, as this is my first time to pay article processing charge (APC), | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 10.4 weeks |
12.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| RSC Advances | 4.7 weeks |
4.9 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| RSC Advances | 3.0 weeks |
3.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| RSC Advances | 5.6 weeks |
5.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| RSC Advances | n/a | n/a | 60.8 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2016 |
| Motivation: Although the editor wrote that the manuscript was sent to reviewers, I suspect this was not so. Ref #1 wrote: "in view of the contents and formats (such as the format of references), I do not believe that RSC advances is an appropriate journal for its publication. I suggest that you submit the manuscript to a specialized journal" This is a remark of a technical editor and not a competent review. Ref#2 wrote: "This manuscript aimed to develop a new algorithm to achieve accurate evaluation of experimental data. However, all the language and writings seem too specialized to understand by the general readers. I noticed that the authors took the example of sensory testing to introduce the algorithm." Again, this info confirms the editor's decision "out of scope". Whether the decision was first and then a justification was written is unknown. Unfortunately there is no way to check the editorial process. The referees do not seem to be independent from the editor. |
||||||||
| RSC Advances | n/a | n/a | 13.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2016 |
| Motivation: It is obvious the editor does not have enough knowledge in this area! last year I have published a lesser work of mine in this journal, and now I have received this comment. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 2.9 weeks |
5.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| RSC Advances | 6.5 weeks |
6.5 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 0 (very bad) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2016 |
| Motivation: Two reviewers were involved. The first one was aggressive sending 15 paragraphs of criticisms regarding fairly everything in the manuscript. The report was full of sarcasm against the author. Fairly unprofessional. The second reviewer was more constructive, but rated the manuscript as not urgent enough. The editor chose to reject the manuscript. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 3.0 weeks |
3.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| RSC Advances | 5.0 weeks |
7.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Motivation: RSC Advances and in general all RSC journals have quite good reviewing policies. I always look for publishing papers in RSC journals. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 4.0 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2014 |
| Motivation: RSC Advances ensures a speedy publication of the articles submitted to it. | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 2.9 weeks |
2.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| RSC Advances | 9.6 weeks |
10.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Motivation: no comments | ||||||||
| RSC Advances | 9.3 weeks |
10.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2013 |
| RSC Advances | 13.0 weeks |
17.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Motivation: Excellent Journal and very good review process | ||||||||