Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
2 months for desk rejection is unacceptable and very disrespectful. After 2 months without news, I sent a e-mail asking for updates about my manuscript, and then received the desk rejection, with the reason that it was not given high priority during initial assessment.
6.6 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Two reviewers were positive about our manuscript and one was lukewarm. Suggestions for improvement were extensive but straightforward. After 15 weeks of non-stop work (days, nights, weekends, holidays), we submitted a revision, which was accepted.
5.7 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
After the second revision we did not obtain response from reviewer 1 and 2 (probably they accepted?); reviewer 2 was changed and rejected the manuscript with no reason
11.6 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
Editor informs after the first round of revision that the comments of reviewer are not available. The rejection was done by the editor even not considering at all the rebuttal. In my long career this was the worst experience at all.
27.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
n/a
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
The review was delayed by half of the year just because one of the reviewers did not respond. The editors did not try to invite a new reviewer and informed us of this situation after four months.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
n/a
n/a
87 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
The journal is fake journal figuratively. The editors do not bother to read the comments from their own journal Science. After 2 months and many communications ,they remember there is manuscript left in their folder and then, they copy-paste same email they have already sent to 99% of people. In fact, there is not much to say except ,the system is true dictatorships; no communication way is open nor any one will answer to your emails. This is true fake science journal which will publish the friends of editors- It is waste of time to bother nor in long-term really does matter - true science will stand after 40-70 years and does not need label or big names.
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
The reviewers made up bunch of false and superficial comments and claims about the work that were not accurate to any degree or related to the work by any way. The reviewers seemed highly biased. Some of the rewievers comments also were obviously copy pasted from an another reviewer they have done as the content of these comments and the terminology used in the comments had no relation to our work.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
My email was purposely altered by journal editorial board staff, so that I could not log in to my Science advances account. No notice of that action was given. Apart from that review was unprofessional.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
The first decision time was relatively long. However the journal is still good.
n/a
n/a
42 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
The submission was done by direct transfer from the journal science, which suggested to forward to science advances. Science took 2 weeks to make that decision. I also sent an email to science advances after 4 weeks asking updates because the status of the submission was stack to "under evaluation" state. Apparently after that i received the desk rejection after 20 more days. Unacceptable!
I quote "Your study on the [...] is beautiful, providing both invaluable new genomic data and illustrations of the value of work such as your group provides here to explore many issues in evolutionary genomics. I didn't find your focus on illustrating how such intensive genomic sampling improves our understanding of genome evolution to be a transfomatory message, [...] but the novelty and detail of your work is certainly a unique and important contribution to evolutionary genomics. Unfortunately, like many studies, though your study has much merit, competition at Science Advances in intense, and your study is not competitive with the many other submissions, so I have to decline your transfer. Sorry!"
I quote "Your study on the [...] is beautiful, providing both invaluable new genomic data and illustrations of the value of work such as your group provides here to explore many issues in evolutionary genomics. I didn't find your focus on illustrating how such intensive genomic sampling improves our understanding of genome evolution to be a transfomatory message, [...] but the novelty and detail of your work is certainly a unique and important contribution to evolutionary genomics. Unfortunately, like many studies, though your study has much merit, competition at Science Advances in intense, and your study is not competitive with the many other submissions, so I have to decline your transfer. Sorry!"
14.3 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
8.9 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Editor should had made the decision after the second round of reviews.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Most of the comments raised by the reviewers were already explained or figures were present in the supplementary materials. Reviewers seemed subjective and even stated wrong literature information. It was a poor handling of the manuscript and it took more than two months.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
11.6 weeks
25.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
9.7 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
6 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
After about 2 months evaluation, the manuscript was sent to 6 reviewers, 3 of them agreed that this work is of great importance and should be published with some revision. 1 of them required a major revision. 2 of them strongly disagree considering the novelty. After resubmitting the revision, the editor sent it to the 3 of them. And the reviewers agreed that the mentioned questions were all solved, but still strongly disagree considering the novelty. The two reviewers hold a strong prejudice on our work at the very beginning, which means no matter what we do is useless. I don't think that making the final decision only based on these 2 reviewers are reasonable. I just feel very disappointed.
22.9 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The quality of reviews are excellent, which helps improve our paper enormously, but the whole process is too slow and long.
n/a
n/a
56 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The journal took an extremely long time (almost two months) to reject the manuscript without sending it to review. One month after submission, I inquired about the delay and I was told that the paper had been "accidentally held in an initial staff check", but was now with the editors. Three weeks after that, I had still not received a response, and I inquired again. I was told by an editorial assistant that the editor was not responding to her emails, and that she would try again. I received the decision exactly the day after that, in a completely generic email with no feedback (or apologies) whatsoever. Desk rejections are OK, but it is only fair to expect that they sould be quick. Taking two months for this is shockingly disrespectful to authors' work.
4.3 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
16.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
We waited for 3 months before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers (we had to provide an additional list of reviewers).
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
7.3 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
At least it was fast, but these generic rejections I find highly annoying. Having some input from the editors would be I think a fair exchange for their getting the paper submission to bump up their selectivity numbers.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Dreadful submission process. Poor communication with the editorial office. The manuscript was desk-rejected more than a month after submission, precisely a day after a follow-up inquiry of the status of the submission was made.
13.0 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Overall, I found the Science Advances submission and review process pretty decent. Not the fastest turnaround, and the coauthor permission forms required at the revision stage are cumbersome. However the journal admins were very responsive and helpful when reaching out.
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
379 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection. "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review. We recommend that you consider a more specialized publication venue for this work."
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The 'initial assesment' took 50 days!
After a long period into submission with no status change, we were curious to ask the journal about our paper. The editor of the journal did not reply to our update request. Days later we again asked, this time the staff. They wrote us that "... editor is currently still working to secure peer reviewers ...".
Then another week after that Email from the staff we received a decision letter that "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review" which is actually against the intermediate Email we got!
Beside the lack of information and communication which were confusing, the 50 days of Editor handling is really too long for cutting-edge science. A good work can be easily scoped in such long period.
After a long period into submission with no status change, we were curious to ask the journal about our paper. The editor of the journal did not reply to our update request. Days later we again asked, this time the staff. They wrote us that "... editor is currently still working to secure peer reviewers ...".
Then another week after that Email from the staff we received a decision letter that "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review" which is actually against the intermediate Email we got!
Beside the lack of information and communication which were confusing, the 50 days of Editor handling is really too long for cutting-edge science. A good work can be easily scoped in such long period.
n/a
n/a
58 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The "immediate reject" decision came after 2 month and the reason given was rejection was wrong (did not reflect the content of the paper). An appeal was sent because of the wrong justification given and the undue delay of the first decision. After 10 days neither has the receipt of the appeal been confirmed, nor did I get an answer.
7.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The editor is efficient. The review comments are helpful to improve our paper. We have made substantial additional changes than the reviews required so it takes more than the required revision time frame (30 days). Absolutely recommend for colleagues in computational biology.
7.1 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
We only received the rejection after we set a deadline to withdraw the submission. 5 weeks for an editorial rejection is completely unacceptable and disrespectful of the authors' time. In their FAQ, the journal states: "Why should I publish in Science Advances? There are many advantages to publishing in Science Advances: Speed – Science Advances aims to rigorously and quickly review manuscript submissions and rapidly publish articles online."
This is not true, quite the opposite: Science Advances is by far the slowest journal I have ever dealt with.
This is not true, quite the opposite: Science Advances is by far the slowest journal I have ever dealt with.
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The article was in review for over three months, and returned two very thin reviews. These raised no critical issues that would sink the paper, and the editor did not give clear reasons for outright rejection.
6.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Relatively fast review and revision processes compared with other journals I submitted, but the second round took a bit longer than expected.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
We got such a reply" Unfortunately, the reviewer comments are not positive enough to support publication of the paper in Science Advances. Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication. We are therefore letting you know that we are rejecting the manuscript and hope that, nonetheless, you find the review comments helpful in preparing your work for submission to another journal". Regrettably, we found that comments are superficial, lack a lot of deep scientific understanding with bias. Therefore, we criticized that decision of rejection based on the apparent bias in the sole reviewer's comments, starting even from a wrong understating of the title to the end of his comments. The comments refer to the inexperience of the reviewer to the core of the topic. We have anxious regarding that high ranking journal with depending on only one reviewer who is not an expert on the submitted research field. We also complained from the long-editorial time, negligence of many inquire emails, un-updating the tracking system. Hereafter, the appeal rejected. We are so sad for wasting our time.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Not interesting enough.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 42.0 days
Drawn back
2020
Motivation:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by Editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling" the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 47.0 days
Drawn back
2020
Motivation:
CONTINUED REVIEW FROM PREVIOUS POST:
Exactly one week after we requested to withdraw our manuscript, we received an apology for inappropriate Editor Handling (but not from the Handling Editor!) and with an “offer” of 20% reduction fee for our next published paper! We felt this response way out of place, if not belonging to other activities that are less related to academic publishing...
Needless to say, we politely declined their offer, our paper was formally withdrawn and we finally ended our 47-day “manuscript process” that never even got a first Editorial Decision from the Editor.
COMMENTS FIRST REVIEW:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by the editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling", the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrew the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work, but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
Having this experience, I might not be so keen to send manuscripts to this journal in the future.
Exactly one week after we requested to withdraw our manuscript, we received an apology for inappropriate Editor Handling (but not from the Handling Editor!) and with an “offer” of 20% reduction fee for our next published paper! We felt this response way out of place, if not belonging to other activities that are less related to academic publishing...
Needless to say, we politely declined their offer, our paper was formally withdrawn and we finally ended our 47-day “manuscript process” that never even got a first Editorial Decision from the Editor.
COMMENTS FIRST REVIEW:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by the editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling", the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrew the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work, but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
Having this experience, I might not be so keen to send manuscripts to this journal in the future.