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
Science Advances n/a n/a 6.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
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.
Science Advances n/a n/a 15.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science Advances 24.7
n/a 3 4
(very good)
Motivation: The editorial board was promptly responsive to inquiries about the status of the paper. They handled it professionally, and paid attention to details. Though the initial review took a long time, it was thorough and the editor was unbiased. They also helped with the media coverage to some extent. The typesetting and formatting assistance offered by the journal is helpful. The article processing charge is not low, but it is not as high as comparable journals. Other than the long first round of review time, all the other aspects were positive about my experience with the journal.