It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of the findings, or their value to others working in this area. At this stage, we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal, and we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature.
We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal. Although we cannot offer to publish your paper in Nature, the work may be appropriate for another journal in the Nature Research portfolio. If you wish to explore suitable journals and transfer your manuscript to a journal of your choice, you may use our manuscript transfer portal. If you transfer to Nature-branded journals or to the Communications journals, you will not have to re-supply manuscript metadata and files.
This link can be used only once and remains active until used. Motivation: On the whole, the review process was very very very slow. The editor decided to send for review after 45 days. And negative advice was send back in two weeks. So unbelievable. It took almost two months. Motivation: Standard desk rejection with transferal suggestion to Nature Communications. Motivation: The review process was smoother than we expected.
The editor was very responsive and professional. Motivation: It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal.
In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. Motivation: we recognise the potential interest of your findings for specialists. However, I regret that we cannot conclude that the paper offers the sort of particularly striking new insights with far-reaching implications that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of the broad scientific readership of Nature.
How long did it take : "There is a norm that peer-review time in top journals is increasing. We had a recent example of a manuscript being rejected after 1.
The manuscript was then reviewed for more than a year by another journal before being published. Reviewers in top journals tend to ask for a significant amount of additional experiments that rarely affect the main message of the manuscript. How it affected me : "The delay in peer review has affected my career. It's hard to apply for grants and move on to new projects before publishing previous results.
Getting a new job such as a faculty position depends on a good publication record and it's hard to have one if papers are under review for years. The main effect on science is that the papers published in top journals are usually old news, as we can now read them on bioRxiv much earlier. For example, most of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes PCAWG papers were on bioRxiv in and, while a lot of additional work has been done to address reviewers' comments, these papers have very similar messages to the ones found in the preprints.
What could be better : "Many researchers post preprints, which can get picked up by social media and informally debated by top scientists in the field. The process for peer review should be re-evaluated in the age of preprints. Finally, in late , another editor was contacted, and the manuscript was resubmitted to the same journal. Between to , the [original] editor cut off contacts with the journal and other editors [for unclear reasons]. How it affected me : "The manuscript was a big part of my PhD dissertation, and not [yet] having it published negatively affected my career prospects.
It certainly dissuaded me from continuing that line of research. On a larger note, the long review time also slows down progress in my field and diminishes its reputation. What could be better : "Reviewers could be given guidelines on how long peer review should take. Final Decision If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. Still have more questions about In Review? Coming soon.
Contact Us For further information, please contact Research Square at info researchsquare. Follow us on Twitter Here to foster information exchange with the library community. Follow us on Facebook. Watch us on YouTube. Follow us on Instagram. Products Journals.
Librarians Overview. Account Development. Sales and account contacts. Our company Overview. About us. Press office. About us We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. General terms and conditions.
California Privacy Statement. Legal notice.
0コメント