Reviews for "Nature"

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
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature n/a n/a 28.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Nature n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Editor pushed manuscript to subjournal; no feedback on manuscript.
Nature 5.9 wks 17.6 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted 2016
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Fast decision: very positive
Nature n/a n/a 13.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Nature n/a n/a 4.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected due to not broad enough interest, but the turnaround time was quick and we were given the option to transfer our manuscript to a different journal within the Nature Publishing Group.
Nature 8.4 wks 31.9 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted 2016
Motivation: The actual review process was fine but the editorial handling of our manuscript was not as I would expect it from a journal that is "commited to rapid editorial decisions and publications" as stated in Nature's peer-review policy. The decision on our second revision was "Accept after minor changes" which only included to ensure that the manuscript does fit within the guidelines. As our manuscript was already formatted according to the guidelines, we stated this in our answer letter and submitted the manuscript again without changing a single sentence in the manuscript itself. Nevertheless, the editor needed again more than two months to accept our manuscript. In addition, during the first four weeks after acceptance nothing happend at all until I asked them when we will receive our proofs. Only after this inquiry I received another e-mail stating that our manuscript had now been passed to the production which needed again roughly two months to finally publish our article. All in all, I was fairly disappointed about the manuscript handling of such a prestigious journal.

Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Nature n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2011
Motivation: The requirements for the journal to even send our paper out for review were too stringent. The number of experiments, all in vivo, that they requested to consider a future resubmission would have doubled the amount of data in the paper. We did not consider all the requested experiments to be critical for the story we were presenting.
Nature n/a n/a 52.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Nature n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Nature n/a n/a 35.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Nature n/a n/a 27.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Criteria for suitability to Nature are not clear, speaking seriously.
Nature 11.6 wks 11.6 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2015
Nature 4.4 wks 5.4 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2014
Nature n/a n/a 15.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Presubmission enquiries very useful.
Nature n/a n/a 0.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: Nature set a record in my lab by rejecting our paper in under 3 hours. I sincerely doubt that the editor carefully considered whether to send our paper out to review.
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Nature n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013