Reviews for "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America"

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
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.0 wks 6.9 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2017
Motivation: We recently choose PNAS as target journal for a study that represented almost 10 years of work and that we considered important. The manuscript submission on the journal's website was straightforward and all exchanges with the editorial staff very professional.
Our three external reviewers made highly constructive suggestions and the editor appraised the study as "elegant, persuasive and appropriate for publication". From this experience, we can highly recommend PNAS for papers destined to a broad audience.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 10.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.4 wks 6.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2016
Motivation: Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 5.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 18.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 22.9 wks 22.9 wks n/a 2 0 (very bad) 0 (very bad) Rejected 2016
Motivation: Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 26.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 11.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Four lines by an editorial board member. Better than nothing... Not new enough for them. Reasonable decision time though.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 26.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 14.6 wks 14.6 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 0 (very bad) Rejected 2016
Motivation: The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 19.7 wks 21.1 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted 2015
Motivation: The only criticism for the way the manuscript was handled, is that initial review took a long time, but this was likely due to the time of year (holiday season). The reviewers' concerns were valid, and appropriate. This was a direct submission, and the review process improved the manuscript.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 6.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.4 wks 5.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2015
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 23.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Absolutely no feedback, despite having taken more than 3 weeks to come to this decision.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Rejected without review, but the submission process was relatively straightforward and the decision from PNAS took only about a week, so all things considered a positive experience and did not waste too much of our time.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6.1 wks 19.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted 2016
Motivation: Initial review time was reasonable, but each subsequent period, which required evaluation of only the changes, was far too long. The 2nd revision required the addition of one panel to an existing figure and could have been evaluated in minutes to decide if it was satisfactory - instead, we waited 9 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, I made several inquiries to the editorial office (PNAS does not reveal the editor of the paper so there is no way to contact him/her directly) who told me they were following up. This went on for 4 more weeks (emails and eventually phone calls, trying to get a decision. Finally, in frustration, I contacted an editorial board member with whom I have a professional relationship and asked for advice on how to get a decision; he contacted the Editor in Chief and within 10 minutes I got a message telling me that the Board accepted the paper, and that the original editor would be informed of the decision. While we were obviously happy with the final outcome, the process took far longer than it should have based on the modest nature of the corrections made at each stage, and created significant anxiety due to uncertainty and concerns that we might get scooped due to the delay.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3.1 wks 3.1 wks n/a 2 1 (bad) 1 (bad) Rejected 2011
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.0 wks 5.0 wks n/a 0 n/a 5 (excellent) Accepted 2015
Motivation: It went smoothly. Fast and efficient.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4.1 wks 4.1 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2012
Motivation: very professional review process with real experts in the field and a fast and fair editorial assessment. Great layout service.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6.0 wks 9.0 wks n/a 3 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2011
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 37.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: PNAS gave the blanket "this study lacks broad appeal" rejection notice. Tremendously annoying to wait for five weeks and then hear that!
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 20.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: Reasonably fast, but a bit disappointing that they had us go through the Initial Quality Check for figures using this dreaded Editorial Manager system three times (a big time investment) — before telling us, two weeks later, that they had barely looked at the manuscript and rejected it anyway for "not having the broad appeal needed for PNAS".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.3 wks 9.7 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 2 (moderate) Rejected 2012
Motivation: The editor gave a one sentence justification for rejection, saying that the paper was not a strong enough contribution to the literature, despite having previously given an R&R decision and us fulfilling all the requests made by the reviewers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 5.0 wks 5.0 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected 2013
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2.9 wks 2.9 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected 2011
Motivation: This was a theoretical paper (which are known to be hard to push through). I found Reviewer 1 very good. In a polite way, s/he appreciated the things s/he found good, and also pointed out the gaps in the paper. This served a lot.
I felt Reviewer 2 acid. In a very ironic way, s/he picked at everything - in a part of these, however, s/he was right. This was useful but the way s/he behaved, was degrading.
Altogether, these reviews was very useful for me because I could re-elaborate the paper which became much stronger.
The whole editorial process was smooth and rapid, the people working at PNAS was polite and elegant. Thank you.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8.7 wks 8.7 wks n/a 3 2 (moderate) 3 (good) Rejected 2011