Reviews for "Science"

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 1.9
weeks
7.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Great experience, outstanding editor, felt like a much more professional experience than what I have seen elsewhere.
Science n/a n/a 25.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: It was sent out for assessment to scientific board advisor after two days, then in their hands 11 days, then another 13 days back under assessment, presumably in debates between the editors as to whether to send for review. This was as a full article, in the extra long online format, 8000 words. I wish they had a faster process, but I do appreciate that they bring in input from leaders in the field who are actual scientists. I also very much appreciate that this journal is produced by the AAAS, and is thus a product of an association of practicing scientists, and is not for profit. I feel that they are less influenced by the push for "trendy" science than the other for profit publishers.
Science n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: "Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: This was a standard desk rejection. We received the editor of our choice,.
Science n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: It took almost one month when we receive the desk rejection. The manuscript status changed from under evaluation, to advisor and under evaluation in the first week. Finally it's rejected after 3 weeks and they offered the transfer to SA. On the whole, the process was quite slow.
Science n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The reasoning was that the topic was not of general interest to their readers. They have a very easy process of submitting a rejected paper to one of their sister journals.
Science 6.0
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Paper was accepted so can’t really complain. Especially since it’s covid. But it took forever.
Science 7.4
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: I was very impressed by the review process at Science. Everything was done quite quickly. The whole process definitely significantly strengthened the quality of the work! I was particularly impressed by the cross review process. We had one reviewer who asked for follow-up work that would have taken years, and through the process of cross review by the other reviewers (which even included bringing in a fourth reviewer) it was concluded that the original reviewer was indeed asking too much and our paper was accepted.
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Science n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript "XXX" to Science. Thank you for your patience—this is an incredibly busy and difficult time for us, both professionally and personally. After evaluation and discussion between the relevant editors, we have ultimately decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The consensus view is that the paper will be of great interest to those in this field, but it is not one of our most competitive submissions.

We receive over 10,000 papers per year, and therefore only send those papers most likely to be published in Science for in-depth review. We select papers on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not at all a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our time and space limitations.

During submission, you requested transfer to Science Advances should Science decide not to proceed with your manuscript. We are pleased that you are choosing to transfer to our high-level, interdisciplinary, open access journal. Please use the link below to confirm the transfer. Transfer will not initiate unless you click this link and, if you choose not to, you are free to submit elsewhere.
Science n/a n/a 23.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: Unless you are a 'big shot' group leader, don't bother submitting here. We presented novel and multidisciplinary work on a high-impact topic with very in-depth content. The paper was not assigned to the editor of our choice who we selected based on previous experience of handling manuscripts in the field. Instead, the paper was assigned to new editor with very poor scientific background and marginaly relevant expertise so it seemed from the get-go that our paper is going to serve as his training material rather. The paper was returned in a week without anything but a form letter and recommendation to resubmit to Science Advances for which we had stated clearly that we had no interest in. So the whole process seemed pre-set to forward high-quality work to boost the impact of their mediocre daughter journal rather than give us a chance to an objective peer review. Multiple inquiries to the editor about more specific feedback were stonewalled and in 6 exchanged e-mails there was not a single indication that the editor had even read the manuscript. Given that the submission had extensive supporting data on top of their typical format, I doubt that that was done as the actual time of 'under editorial consideration' status was actually extremely brief.
Science n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process
Science 7.3
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Submitted the MS right before winter break. MS was sent out for review shortly after the new year. As they claimed, it took two weeks for the reviews to come back. Reviews were overall positive about our study. The paper was accepted with minor revisions. Overall, the review process was very smooth and quality of comments were high.
Science n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: The paper was not general interest enough for the journal.
Science n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Manuscript Title" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Exact reason:
"Because your manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that while your paper will be of great interest to the field it is not one of the most competitive in terms of general interest."
Science n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Disappointing result but at least (unlike the other high-impact magazine) the immediate rejection was only one week (instead of several).
Science n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript "xxx" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Science 5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Science 5.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The overall experience was quick and painless. The editor felt that our work was interesting but too many experiments would have been required to answer to the reviewers comments. We regret the outright rejection and the impossibility to answer to the reviewers criticisms as most of them could have been addressed through a detailed response.
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: Manuscript passed the "To Advisor" stage after initial submission and stayed "under considerations" with a given editor for few more days. In the end it was a standard desk rejection with the text below.

"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Science 8.4
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Our manuscript was initially rejected after the first round of reviews. It seemed to us the decision was largely based on the a methodological misunderstanding from only one reviewer. We appealed the decision and were granted an appeal on the condition of providing significant additional data (including totally new approaches not used in our original submission). We revised the manuscript over the course of several months and resubmitted with all the requested data, which greatly improved the paper. After another, positive round of reviews we were asked to make some additional cosmetic changes and the manuscript was finally accepted a year after the initial submission.
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Standard, nondescript answer.
Science n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: If you are somehow important, come from a "name brand" school, or know the editor, I'd say go ahead and submit, regardless of the quality of your work.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Science 12.0
weeks
13.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: In retrospect the process was relatively painless but it felt very long during the review. Two weeks after the submission the manuscript was sent to review. Judging from the 'last activity date' two reviews were back within about 2 weeks but we were left waiting for 6 weeks. Upon our inquiry the editor decided to go with the reviews at hand -- then the manuscript remained "under evaluation" for a month before the decision. The reviews were of high quality, but not particularly different from the kinds we get for the society-level journals. Taking two weeks to revise, we resubmitted, and the manuscript was accepted in 10 days. Overall it took 15.5 weeks to get accepted after the initial submission. I believe this was a relatively uncontroversial case and it would have been accepted in less than two months at a society-level journal in our field, but the outcome was worth the wait.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: It is difficult to pass the barrier of the inner review process set by the members of the editorial board (some big guys). They gave us low points in the initial evaluation, making the manuscript cannot be further reviewed by external reviewers. Though rejected, I appreciate the decision speed and the editor's attitude.
Science n/a n/a 29.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: In the cover letter we suggested a number of possible editors listed on the website, but the manuscript was sent to someone outside of our field of study (and not on our list in the cover letter). Given the importance of the manuscript and the scientific discovery we thought it would still be evaluated as an important paper, even by a scientist who is not an expert in this field of science. We checked the daily the submission system online, and saw that the manuscript bounced between two different editors outside of our field of study over the 4-weeks it was evaluated. From the rejection email we received it was clear that the editor had not added any comments, and there was no reason given for the rejection (Given the statements made in the form email it was clear it had not been written by a human). It took 4 weeks to receive the form rejection letter from the journal! We will resubmit the manuscript elsewhere given how important this discovery is. Hope this helps fellow scientists looking to submit to Science.
Science n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science 20.4
weeks
20.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Article was first reviewed by two advisory board members (apart from the editor handling the manuscript). They suggested some changes before it can actually sent out to the external review. After a month, we re-submitted the article and it was sent to two reviewers. One was positive and recommended the article for publication and second reviewer one was too naive (someone who is a direct competitor in the field), and tried to block the article from publication in Science and hence gave very bad rating to the manuscript. Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on second reviewer's comments.

My experience is that once the article is under review, it does not matter that its Science or whichever journal, it's just an ordinary article and one should not expect good detailed comments on the name of journal's reputation.
Science 12.0
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The reviews were of very high quality, and the referee comments certainly improved the manuscript. The complete process outcome was positive. The editorial times, however, were very long: both the initial filtering and the final editorial changes took longer than the referee process itself, which we found surprising.
Science n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Very long desk rejection process, zero personalised feedback. Waste of time.
Science n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: It was fast and painless process.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Desk rejection prior to review claiming the paper might be better suited to a specialist journal.
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017