Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Not very friendly, but fast
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The paper was decided to be "not competitive enough for the limited space". We received two nonconstructive reviews that seemed put together last minute. I was very surprised on the low quality review from a journal like Science. One review said that we didn't provide evidence for a competing theory in the field, the second asked us to repeat data from 3 previous manuscripts from our lab, suggesting a thorough review process was not done.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
Totally terrible experience. i.m rejection without an informed email. 5/9 Submitted to the journal. 12/9 To advisor. 1/10 Rejection. We sent a email at 26/9, but got no response. We saw the rejection status on the website, but did not received a rejected email. Unless you have a strong backgroud, don't bother a submission.
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
25.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Rejection after many, many months under review, and based on biased, technically incorrect reviews, because a paper "cannot compete for space" is signs of gross editorial failure (without even mentioning the dubious papers that do manage to compete for space). The review process here is not objective and has no connection to science.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
25.0 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Very slow editorial process that could be considered a total failure. It took 6 months to get 2 reviews. Reviews received were incorrect and based on technical errors and obvious bias. The rejection was appealed, and a resubmission requested accepted for consideration - this took another 2.5 months for a response. The rejection was upheld on the grounds that the manuscript was "uncompetitive" relative to other submissions, and due to comments from reviewers directly to the editors. It is unclear why so much time (8.5 months) was required to consider the submission if it was (subjectively) uncompetitive, but it is clear from this, and related materials published recently, that the review process is based on low quality, technically inaccurate, biased reviews and capricious decision making.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
1.9 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Great experience, outstanding editor, felt like a much more professional experience than what I have seen elsewhere.
n/a
n/a
25 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.
n/a
n/a
12 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."
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."
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
This was a standard desk rejection. We received the editor of our choice,.
n/a
n/a
26 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.
n/a
n/a
1 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.
6.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Paper was accepted so can’t really complain. Especially since it’s covid. But it took forever.
7.4 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
18 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.
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.
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
7 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.
n/a
n/a
12 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
7.3 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
The paper was not general interest enough for the journal.
n/a
n/a
8 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.
n/a
n/a
14 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."
"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."
n/a
n/a
6 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).
n/a
n/a
3 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.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
14 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."
"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."
8.4 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Standard, nondescript answer.
n/a
n/a
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.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018