Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.1 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
I submitted to RSC advances because I heard that peer review was fast and also heard that review process is fair.
1.0 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
If you are in a hurry and want to publish in short time. I must prefer this journal. Overall rating: 10/10. Everything was smooth throughout the procedure.
7.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
All the reviewers comments were really helpful and justified. Overall I am very satisfied about the review process and the outcome.
9.3 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
9.3 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
12.1 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
4.0 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
2.6 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
3.9 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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),
10.4 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
4.7 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
5.6 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
60 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.
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.
n/a
n/a
13 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.
2.9 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
RSC Advances ensures a speedy publication of the articles submitted to it.
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
9.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
no comments
9.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Excellent Journal and very good review process