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 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
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process.
Science n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: standard rejection: "The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal."
overall submission process quite pleasant (online information on status of submission etc)
Science n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Science n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Passed to Advisor stage before editorial rejection. Slower than usual decision due to holiday period.
Science 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The overall process was relatively fast. The manuscript was assigned to three different referees, nevertheless their background on the topic studied in the manuscript was apparently poor and resulted in several naive comments. I do not know if the journal's policy, regarding its broad readership, includes inviting not specialized reviewers, however, we finally got only a minimal feedback, despite the three different reports we received. The manuscript was rejected because the reviews were "not positive enough". We ended up surprised, not by the rejection per se, but by the unexpectedly low quality of the reviews.
Science n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Almost 4 weeks to immediate rejection, with generic rejection message (manuscript not given sufficiently high priority during the initial screening process).
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: A general "low-urgency" response template. No details.
Science n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: The editorial rejection did not include specific helpful information giving the reason for the rejection. However, the process was relatively fast, and the manuscript tracking on the author website was informative, showing which editor the manuscript had been assigned to and indicating when the manuscript was passed on to the board of reviewing editors. Online submission at this journal has improved substantially since I last submitted a manuscript there in 2012.
Science n/a n/a 31.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Science n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted (im.) 2015
Science 8.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Science 5.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 6 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Science 7.4
weeks
81.7
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Science n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Reasonably fast, though it's a bit tannoying to have to wait for two weeks for what is essentially a desk rejection.
Science n/a n/a 4.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: There was really no justification except its not interesting enough to a broad readership. However, they have, over the past years, published much more specialized papers from the big names in the field. I guess the name is more important than the scientific quality.
Science n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Science n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013