PNAS Article Types Unsolicited Article Types Research reports describe the results of original research of exceptional importance. The preferred length of these articles is 6 pages, but PNAS allows articles up to a maximum of 12 pages. A standard 6-page article is approximately 4,000 words, 50 references, and 4 medium-size graphical elements (i.e. PNAS publishes ‘cutting-edge research’ and papers ‘must be of exceptional scientific importance.’ Contributions to PNAS are published under any of the following categories: Research reports, Letters, Front matter, Commentaries, Perspectives, and Colloquium papers; all but the first two are written only at the invitation of the editorial. 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. Sizing tips: It may be necessary to reduce the size of your figures to meet the PNAS page length restriction. To ensure that text within your figures remains legible if you do need to reduce the size of your figures, please follow these steps: 1. Prepare your figures at the size you would like them to appear in the final publication.
The first monthly issue of PNAS was published on January 15, 1915, with 17 articles, including a report from the home secretary summarizing the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) 1914 Autumn Meeting. Papers were between one and four pages in length, for a grand total of 58 pages. In contrast, PNAS is now published daily online and in weekly issues. Our December 29, 2015 issue contains 60 articles, 293 print pages, and 136 online-only pages, with an average article length of 6.8 pages, not to mention all of the supplemental data. In the last 100 years, PNAS has published well over 150,000 articles and nearly 650,000 printed pages, covering research in a wide swath of physical, biological, and social sciences. The PNAS Office receives around 50 Direct Submission papers a day for consideration and, after initial review by the Editorial Board, about half of them—close to 7,000 papers a year—are sent for review. In the last few years, about 3,000 Direct Submission research articles have been published annually, which constitutes an acceptance rate of 16–19%. More than 75% of published papers are Direct Submissions (i.e., not contributed by NAS members). A 120-word statement about the significance of the paper is prominently displayed on the first page of each research article to allow a casual reader to understand its importance. Moving into the next century, our primary focus will remain on publishing the highest quality scientific papers.
PNAS is one of the most widely read interdisciplinary journals in the world, and the online edition receives well over 25 million hits per month. PNAS continues to be a leading player in the dissemination of the best scientific research. In January 2013, we expanded the front section of the journal with five new article types—Core Concepts, Opinions, News Features, Science and Culture, and Inner Workings—with the goal of better explaining and more actively discussing the core research we publish. A senior editor oversees and recruits content for these sections, as well as the Journal Club blog (blog.pnas.org). The front section continues to be mentioned as an attractive feature of PNAS by readers in annual surveys. Other nonresearch pieces in this section can also highlight important scientific and funding issues, such as the Perspective on the state of biomedical research in the United States by Alberts, Kirschner, Tilghman, and Varmus ().
To celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the journal and a century of groundbreaking research, we published Anniversary Commentaries and Perspectives on notable papers from our archives. In all, we commissioned 3 Special Features, 7 Commentaries, 8 Perspectives, and 12 front matter articles, all discussing landmark papers published in PNAS: for example, Nash’s paper on game theory (), Nirenberg and Matthaei’s paper on in vitro translation (), Pauling and Coryell’s paper on the magnetic properties of hemoglobin (), and Hunter and Sefton’s paper on tyrosine kinase (). Our Anniversary portal (pnas100th.org) collects all of this content, as well as three eye-catching videos, each featuring a significant publication from the PNAS archives, and an interactive timeline.
The member Contributed submission track is a unique feature of PNAS, whereby NAS members can select their own reviewers, although the final version of the paper requires approval by a member of the PNAS Editorial Board. This track remains a privilege of NAS membership and is a source of debate with NAS members and nonmembers alike. To make the process more transparent and stringent, we have mandated since October 2015 that the names and affiliations of the reviewers be listed alongside the name of the contributing member. We have also asked that members submit their contributions directly to the PNAS Office with the names of the reviewers so that the PNAS Office can handle all correspondence during the review process. The member receives the reviews and makes the decision to respond and to submit a revised manuscript. As before, the final say regarding the suitability of the work for PNAS rests with a member of the Editorial Board. To level the playing field, members are no longer permitted to submit a paper for a nonmember or to serve as a “prearranged” editor for a nonmember’s paper.
For many years, PNAS has published a disproportionately high number of manuscripts in the biological sciences, even though nearly half the NAS membership is in the physical sciences and mathematics. To encourage more participation from the nonbiological sciences, we have hired a recruiting editor dedicated to spearheading solicitation of papers from the physical sciences and mathematics. We have also added two new associate editors and expanded the Editorial Board with additional expertise in social science, economics, engineering, and sustainability.
Article Sizing Tool Pnas Free
For nearly five decades, I have witnessed PNAS displayed prominently on library shelves, but as of 2015 the journal stopped advertising a print option to subscribers. I am saddened by this loss, but the reality is that online journals are the future and PNAS Online contains more information than the print edition, such as supporting information, PNAS Plus research papers, and Letters to the Editor. We are re-evaluating our page limits for both articles and supporting information, and are mindful of the fact that long manuscripts demand more time of the reviewers and cost more to produce, even when published online only.
Nearly 1,200 Academy members participated in the review process in 2015 by serving as an assigned editor, and we enlisted help from almost 1,000 guest editors when there were no Academy members available to handle the paper or who were expert in the topic of the work. However, all papers published in PNAS, whether Direct Submissions edited by an NAS member or guest editor, or Contributed by an Academy member, are approved by a member of the PNAS Editorial Board. We want to encourage more Academy members and members of the broad scientific community to become active in editing and reviewing for PNAS.
On occasion, when editorial disagreements arise or when questions are raised about conflicts of interest, scientific misconduct, retractions, reviewers, data availability, and other concerns, we consult with experts to establish guidelines. For example, we have
We want to encourage more Academy members and members of the broad scientific community to become active in editing and reviewing for PNAS.
refined our policies on conflicts of interest, how to manage complex data availability concerns regarding sources like Facebook and Twitter, and how to handle studies involving human participants without compromising patient identity. In addition, we are looking at issues hindering the replication of published results caused by a lack of sufficient methodological information.
Because of the genomic era and increased emphasis on translational research and clinical trials, we are witnessing an increase of publications in these areas. Similarly, the boundaries between biological and physical sciences are fading rapidly. As PNAS moves into its next century, I would like to explore how we can increase our engagement in such areas, and I invite your comments and suggestions on our current and future plans.
References
Reviews for 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'
Article Sizing Tool Pnas Examples
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 |