Reviews for "Science 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
Science Advances 7.3
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Science Advances n/a n/a 6.0
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.
Science Advances n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Science Advances n/a n/a 32.0
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.
Science Advances 13.0
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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.
Science Advances 11.6
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2020
Science Advances n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Science Advances n/a n/a 379.0
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."
Science Advances n/a n/a 49.0
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.
Science Advances n/a n/a 58.0
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.
Science Advances 7.4
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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.
Science Advances 7.1
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
Science Advances n/a n/a 34.0
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.
Science Advances 13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
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.
Science Advances 6.0
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
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.
Science Advances 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
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.
Science Advances n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Not interesting enough.
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 42 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.
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 47 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.
Science Advances n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Science Advances 11.7
weeks
30.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Science Advances 7.3
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Science Advances n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: We submitted a pair of back-to-back papers as a full story to be considered by Sci. Adv.

The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).

The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
Science Advances 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Review process was very very long. First we got one reviewer and 2 month later another 2 reviewers. This came as a surprise. It was all together some what confusing and took to much time.
Science Advances n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: our manuscript get rejected with no specific reasons. It really is a bad experience. I suggest not wasting time on this journal if you are not famous enough in your field.
Science Advances 11.7
weeks
41.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Science Advances 12.2
weeks
12.2
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: After 3 months of no contact, I got feedback from 1 reviewer that was only 4 sentences that simply restated what was in the manuscript abstract. Apparently the other reviewer's comments had been admitted. The review was shallow and the editors gave a stock explanation for rejection saying: "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."
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 100 days Drawn back 2019
Science Advances n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Science Advances n/a n/a 60.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: It took two months to receive a standard desk rejection, which is disappointing on its own. The lack of feedback or rationale for rejection is even worse. However, the worst part was we had new data that strengthened the story and we contacted editorial office in order to try to update the manuscript. However, there was no reply from the staff and the manuscript tracking system has no apparent way to withdraw manuscripts under consideration. This whole process with Science (~ 1 month until a standard desk reject) and then two months with Science Advances has been very frustrating. In the future, I will definitely not be transferring manuscripts from Science to Science Advances.
Science Advances n/a n/a 13.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Relatively painless process. Editor thought the paper too descriptive and correlative and more suited for a cancer-oriented journal.
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 182 days Drawn back 2019
Science Advances Drawn back before first editorial decision after 182 days Drawn back 2019
Science Advances n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Science Advances n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: It was rather straightforward.
Science Advances n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science Advances n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Science Advances n/a n/a 52.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Rejection by the editorial staff after a ridiculous 7.5 weeks. They judged the work to be "too specialized to be competitive". Complete waste of two whole months. No feedback that would be useful to improve the manuscript. I'm extremely disappointed.
Science Advances n/a n/a 15.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: The initial evaluation by the editors is very slow. They found 1 minute in over 2 weeks to make the decision. No useful comments, waste of time. The editors are all university professors, which differs from Nature publishing group. Initial I thought it means more professionals, but now I realized it means very slow because the professors are too busy. They don't have time to consider the manuscript seriously.
Science Advances n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Decision was thankfully very quick and handling editor actually sent some positive feedback. Said that the paper was very interesting but ultimately not broad enough interest for the journal. Gave a few thoughts that came to mind that might improve the discussion. It was nice to get some feedback even though it was ultimately rejected even if for the sole evidence that someone seriously considered it. Editor also gave feedback that they rarely accept science-rejected manuscripts except in situations where;

“the paper is excellent but (1) is too long for Science, (2) has important broader impacts even if the science is not transformatory, (3) is excellent but happens to be redundant with a recent publication in Science, or (4) it really needs to be open access”

Overall great experience even through disappointing. Would submit again.