Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.7 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
29 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.
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.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
16 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.
11.7 weeks
41.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
12.2 weeks
12.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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."
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 100.0 weeks
Drawn back
2019
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
60 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.
n/a
n/a
13 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.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 182.4 weeks
Drawn back
2019
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 182.0 weeks
Drawn back
2019
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
It was rather straightforward.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
52 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.
n/a
n/a
15 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.
n/a
n/a
6 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.
“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.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
24.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
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.