Article Sizing Tool Pnas
Article Sizing Tool Pnas 8,7/10 5473 votes
Hello,
Zotero's style sheet for the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences seems to cite doctoral dissertations incorrectly. Here's how Zotero cited a dissertation I referenced:
Otterstatter MC (2007) Dynamics of an intestinal pathogen within and between bumble bee hosts.
Here's how dissertations are referenced in that journal:
Otterstatter, M.C. (2007) Dissertation (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON).
I fixed the problem manually, but maybe this should be changed? Thanks!
Zotero's style sheet for the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences seems to cite doctoral dissertations incorrectly. Here's how Zotero cited a dissertation I referenced:
Otterstatter MC (2007) Dynamics of an intestinal pathogen within and between bumble bee hosts.
Here's how dissertations are referenced in that journal:
Otterstatter, M.C. (2007) Dissertation (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON).
I fixed the problem manually, but maybe this should be changed? Thanks!
- Could you provide a link to a paper that cites a dissertation or instructions discussing this? That style (e.g. periods for author initials) seems inconsistent with their other reference formats.
- Sorry about that, I was wrong to include the periods for author initials. Also, in more recent PNAS papers, the title is included, along with 'PhD' before the word 'Dissertation'. Here's an example:
Adler LL (1980) Adjustment of the Yuba River, California, to the influx of hydraulic
mining debris, 1849–1979. PhD dissertation (University of California, Los Angeles).
You can see this in a recent paper titled 'Enduring legacy of a toxic fan via episodic redistribution of California gold mining debris' and available here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/10/23/1302295110.abstract?sid=9e0ccea7-8b35-48a8-a2a5-687a508cd8da
Thanks for your help. - edited November 3, 2013The style has been fixed. You can update your version of the style via Preferences -> General -> Update Now. You will also need to refresh the bibliography in your word processor. (though depending on how you fixed the bibliography manually yourself, this may not work)
Software free download music. Article Sizing Tool provides a rough approximation of the published table format. If your manuscript is accepted, your tables will be composed to meet PNAS style. Microsoft sql server management studio for mac. If you believe that your manuscript is overlong in the Length Estimate PDFbecause of the rendering of.
- PNAS Editor-in-Chief Randy Schekman discusses the journal's new option to publish online-only research articles. Call for papers: PNAS Plus Rutledge Ellis-Behnke discusses his research in nano-healing, a technology that halts bleeding and helps the brain and body to recover from injury and disease.
- 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.
- Use the following template to cite a journal using the PNAS citation style. For help with other source types, like books, PDFs, or websites, check out our other guides.To have your reference list or bibliography automatically made for you, try our free citation generator.
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 | 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 |
Pnas Latest Articles
