Reviews for "Science Translational Medicine"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: Our Paper was a complete study on a widely used drug. Previously, another paper had been published in STM which we disproved through thorough experiments and mathematical modeling. The handling editor is probably the same. They rejected the paper without any given reason/peer review as they don't want to accept that they published a scientifically incorrect paper in the recent past. This journal runs its own propaganda.
6.1 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
7.3 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: After one round of major revision to address three reviewer's conctructive comments, a second round of minor revision to address one reviewer's remaining comments, we spend another week to address the journal editors' extensive and expert comments to the text and figures.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: Quick, shallow rejection from the editors
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
2018
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.
11.0 weeks
45.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
2017
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.
5.1 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2017
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.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014