PNAS Page Length Estimate Guidelines. Click here to access the Article Sizing Tool. Details about length requirements for PNAS can be found in the Information for Authors. If you have problems with the Article Sizing Tool or if you have questions about your ength L Estimate PDF, please contact. PNAS commits to immediately and freely sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. See the free collection of PNAS coronavirus papers and learn more about our response to COVID-19.
Article Sizing Tool Pnas Template
Reviews for 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'
Article Sizing Tool Pnas Free
| 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 | n/a | n/a | 23.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Motivation: After three weeks at the editorial board, I received a generic one-liner reason for rejection, which says that the paper does not meet one or more requirements of the journal. I personally believe that the true reason for rejection is because the work is multi-disciplinary and the editor, who is only versed in one discipline might not have understood the true significance of the paper. In any case, they should have gotten back to me quicker. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 9.7 weeks | 9.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: Not as fast as promised, and with one reviewer miss-understanding the methodology (which the other reviewer commended) this was never going to cut it for PNAS. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 8.0 weeks | 10.4 weeks | n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: The speed of the review process was convincible and we received good comments from two reviewers that improved parts of our discussion. From the comments we received, we found that the reviewers had good knowledge on the matter discussed in the paper. | ||||||||
| 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.) | 2020 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 16.4 weeks | 16.4 weeks | n/a | 1 | 0 (very bad) | 0 (very bad) | Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: The entire process took way too long (for which they apologized). We received only one surprisingly low-quality and short review, ignoring all the main contributions of the paper, and only claiming false points. Unfortunately it was clear that the reviewer did not even read the paper -- he/she said 'no' to all the structured questions like 'is the paper written well', 'is the procedure explained', etc. (well, it may sound ridiculous emphasizing this, but as one may guess we did explain our procedures with lengthy formal results and mathematical proofs backing it up. So, yes, he/she did not read the paper). Aside from the poor review, we got direct rejection without considering other reviews, just saying that it is unlikely to change their mind. More disappointing was that we did not have the chance to rebuttal the false claims. Myself and my co-authors are senior researchers with several prior publications in different top venues. This paper in particular was the result of several rounds of reading and polishing as well as consideration of inputs from multiple high-caliber colleagues. It was an extremely disappointing experience. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 4.3 weeks | 8.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: The review comments are helpful to improve the manuscript. Also, the editor gave us a positive comments. The reviewing process was fair and constructive. I would like to submit this journal again. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 7.9 weeks | 10.1 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: Overall great experience. The second paper I've published with PNAS and so far they have both been nice experiences. I would definitely submit another article to them again in the future. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 3.9 weeks | 6.3 weeks | n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: The review process was overall good and efficient. We got comments from two reviewers, both liked the idea of the paper but recommended a major revision that required a lot of effort from our side. The reviewers fully understood the paper and their comments really made the paper better. Overall, great review process, fast and efficient. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 5.0 weeks | 11.5 weeks | n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: The first round's decision for revise & resubmit was based mostly off of a single (though incredibly thorough) reviewer ('reviewer #1'). The second round included one more simple reviewer and an even more thorough request for revision from reviewer #1. The modifications made to our submission due to this reviewer #1's comments undoubtedly made the paper significantly better off. All in all the PNAS submission process, though stressful at times, was a great success! | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 13.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| 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.) | 2018 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 4.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| 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 | n/a | n/a | 27.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 99.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Motivation: It took 14 weeks for the editor to determine it was not a good fit. We requested updates several times through the review process and were ultimately told 12 weeks into the process that the editor had stopped responding to emails. Completely unprofessional management. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 8.1 weeks | 12.6 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 11.0 weeks | 11.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 39.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Motivation: Took a long time for a desk reject - sat with Editorial Board for over 5 weeks and then the minute it went to Editor was rejected. Generic letter, not helpful. | ||||||||
| 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.) | 2019 |
| Motivation: Decision was fast and even though an immediate rejection was decided we did not loose much time | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 7.4 weeks | 7.4 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: Reviewers dedicated much time reviewing the manuscript. The comments are helpful to further improve the manuscript contents. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 3.1 weeks | 3.1 weeks | n/a | 1 | 0 (very bad) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 10.1 weeks | 15.0 weeks | n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) | 5 (excellent) | Accepted | 2019 |
| 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.) | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 36.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 13.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| 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.) | 2019 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 32.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Motivation: Took 5 weeks to desk-reject with a 1 line justification. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 12.0 weeks | 12.0 weeks | n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: It took them 4 weeks to find an editor and another two weeks to find external reviewers. The reviewers' comments were relatively straightforward and useful; it was also evident that the reviewers had a profound understanding of the subject. However, the whole process from submission to rejection was delayed (which the editor apologized for in an email) and took almost 3 months. This was unnecessarily drawn out. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 12.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| 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.) | 2019 |
| Motivation: Fast rejection time, particularly since the manuscript was sent just before Christmas. Editor comments were not extremely helpful, but at least it seemed that they had looked into the manuscript. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 6.4 weeks | 6.4 weeks | n/a | 2 | 3 (good) | 3 (good) | Rejected | 2018 |
| Motivation: One reviewer very positive, the other thought wasn't interesting enough. Member editor agreed with latter, and also seemed to incorrectly think similar work had been done. I pointed this out to editor, but got a canned response that PNAS can't provide additional feedback. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2018 |
| Motivation: Generic recommendation to submit to specialty journal. Not sure if they read carefully, as the suggested journals / journal topics were not relevant for the manuscript. | ||||||||
| 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.) | 2018 |
| Motivation: Process at PNAS is quite opaque: for example, they do not share the identify of the Editorial Board Members. | ||||||||
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 14.4 weeks | 23.7 weeks | n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) | 4 (very good) | Accepted | 2018 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days | n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2016 |
| Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 8.4 weeks | 8.4 weeks | n/a | 3 | 2 (moderate) | 2 (moderate) | Rejected | 2018 |
Article Sizing Tool Pnas Download
Lattice/cell structures have relatively high characteristics of rigidity and strength, excellent thermal insulation properties, energy absorption characteristics, and high fatigue resistance. The use of this type of structure in engine part construction opens up new opportunities for advanced aviation applications. However, the deformation behavior of porous and metallic structures differs significantly from that of conventional homogeneous materials. Samples with cellular and porous structures are themselves designs. Therefore, procedures for strength testing and interpretation of experimental results for cellular and porous structures differ from those for samples derived from homogeneous materials. The criteria for determining the properties of cellular structures include density, stiffness, ability to accumulate energy, etc. These parameters depend on the configuration of the cells, the size of each cell, and the thickness of the connecting elements. Mechanical properties of cellular structures can be established experimentally and confirmed numerically. Special cellular specimens have been designed for uniaxial tensile, bending, compression, shear, and low-cycle fatigue testing. Several variants of cell structures with relative densities ranging from 13 to 45% were considered. Specifically, the present study examined the stress-strain states of cell structures from brands 'CobaltChrome MP1' powder compositions obtained by laser synthesis on an industrial 3D printer Concept Laser M2 Cusing Single Laser 400W. Numerical simulations of the tests were carried out by the finite element method. Then, the most rational cellular structures in terms of mass and strength were established on the basis of both real and numerical experiments.