Nature (Nature) Such quick changes may mean a glitch, but given that its a Nature journal, thats unlikely. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. We suggest that authors send proofs to co-authors for them to check, but request that changes among the co-authors are coordinated so that only one author communicates with Nature and only one set of corrections is sent. ensure that the figures and tables are clear and will fit in the space available. We've all felt this way : r/labrats - Reddit More importantly, in the rejection letter it was evident that the Editor had taken the time to read through our manuscript and had given it some thought . As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Critical review determines the suitability and originality of the paper and the adequacy and conciseness of the presentation. What could this mean? The Peer Review Process | Wiley After all revisions have been made (papers may be returned to the author more than once for revision), if the paper is found suitable for publication in a GSA journal, the Science Editor will send a final decision letter to the author, accepting the manuscript for publication. If the scale of revisions means that the authors would need a long period of time and the manuscript would need extensive reworking, it may be suitable to reject the manuscript but invite the authors to resubmit. GSA Bulletin: gsab@geosociety.org Technical reasons for rejection include: Incomplete data. The decision is sent to the author. //-->