Reviews for "Science Translational Medicine"

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 Translational Medicine n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Science Translational Medicine 12.9
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: 13 weeks is too long. Two out of three reviewers liked the MS, but a third did not. Plus editors submitted MS to internal reviewer , a claimed "expert" in Endocrinology, who was anything but an Expert.
Science Translational Medicine 11.0
weeks
45.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
Motivation: Our initial experience was that although the reviewing process was a bit slow, we got very useful and constructive comments. After the second revision however, communication with the handling editor was sparse, and multiple emails had to be sent in order to get an update on our manuscript. In the last revision round the editor allowed at least 8 weeks before reviewer comments' submission, further delaying the process. After acceptance of our paper, there were another 6 months before the manuscript was published online, again due to difficulties in communication with the editor. We consider that our manuscript was not handled in the most professional way.
Science Translational Medicine 5.1
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The 14 week time for the second review included edits made by the editor herself. Prior to this, the paper was unofficially accepted; however the official notice did not come until we did one round of minor edits with the editor.
Science Translational Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)