Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very quick process. Review quality was overall good, sometimes missing the limitations of the word limit at this journal. Editor engaged with the paper and highlighted most important changes to be made.
Motivation:
The review process and the assistance with blinding were both handled well. The reviewers were knowledgeable and gave constructive criticism.
Motivation:
Reviewers gave very brief comments saying the findings were incremental and editor rejected our submission. No further comments by editor were provided.
Motivation:
Editorial process was prompt but after requesting four potential reviewers be excluded from the Reviewer pool, one of them was still selected as a reviewer. The inclusion of this Reviewer led to a laborious back-and-forth that did not improve the quality of the manuscript. The other two reviewers made many comments that improved the manuscript. The paper was accepted but I don't plan to submit to NPP while the current Editors remain.
Motivation:
Great - fastest desk rejects I know. Sad they don't publish much policy.
Motivation:
Manuscript took a while to get accepted and took forever to find reviewers. In the end, they found reviewers which gave decent feedback and improved the quality of the manuscript. While the review process itself isn't bad, the journals management was horrendous. For example, they charged the manuscript to my department (which they paid) and confirmed the receipt to me. 2 months later, they sent an invoice saying the payment has not been made. When I told them that and forwarded the details to them, they claimed that they needed more details (like what other details do you need?). Worst of all, they were very lacklustre to even try and locate the payment that has already been made and confirmed by them. When I told them of whom the payment was made from, they simply said "Can you provide details like credit card to confirm?", saying that "We get a lot of manuscripts from [my institution] and therefore it will be difficult for us to locate the payment". You mean to tell me you don't keep track of who and payments and to what manuscript the payment was made to? You simply took the money? They expected me to go and get my department's credit card and provide them details to them. Anyone with a brain cell knows that no department will do that. If not I will just save the details into my account and charge them for anything and everything.
To make matters worse, I left the institute when this happened, so this further complicated matters, of which scientific reports did not seem to bother to care.
To make matters worse, I left the institute when this happened, so this further complicated matters, of which scientific reports did not seem to bother to care.
Motivation:
The editor is vers responsive and respond to emails fast with clear instruction.
Motivation:
Quick and good editorial responses.
Motivation:
The peer review process was smooth and quick
Motivation:
The peer review process has heavily improved my MS, and I am pretty thankful for such a rigorous process and to the reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process took a long time considering the short and fairly easy going reviews I received. It also took longer than I'd have expected to get an editor's decision (especially since I submitted to a special issue). Overall the process was ok and the interactive review system made it fairly quick to make and get revisions approved. Very high APC, as we're used to with Frontiers.
Motivation:
Rejected by the editor despite the reviewers recommending minor revisions. Both reviews very short and superficial - about 5 lines of text in total - but still took over 2 months. Resubmitted to a much higher IF journal which provided serious reviews and accepted the paper.
Motivation:
Extremely detailed and mostly helpful review reports. The second review round took a bit longer than it really needed to but the editor's decision came very quickly after that which helped keep things moving.
Motivation:
Desk rejects are always painful, but this one was reasonably fast and we had a useful pointer from the editor.
Motivation:
This journal's peer review system seems to have been problematic since the current Chief Editor took over.
Motivation:
The level of reviews is approximately equal to the level of the best representatives of regional university bulletins. The requirement to cite your work at the end looks especially charming. We were prepared for the fact that a good journal might have high requirements, so we did not rule out the possibility of a motivated reject. But we certainly could not imagine such a level of reviews. If six months were the price for reasonable comments, this could at least be understood. 2, because the site is convenient and the editor is polite.
Motivation:
The review process took a bit longer than expected, but I noticed that the recruitment of suitable reviewers caused the delay. Once the invitations were accepted, the reviewing time was quite reasonable. The first round of reviews was thorough and accurate, although one reviewer's comments felt uncomfortable. In the second round, this reviewer mentioned that, in hindsight, he realized his comments were a bit harsh. Overall, the reviewing process improved the paper and pointed out subtle issues.
Motivation:
RSC editors have been the best recently in terms of having lowest manuscript handling time
Motivation:
Editor judged manuscript would be better suited for a more specialised or a broad-scope journal with slightly less stringent requirements. Very quick handling means you can submit without losing too much time even in case of desk rejection.
Motivation:
Sadly
Motivation:
During my 40+ years in science, I have authored/coauthored well over 100 papers. This review process has the absolute worst of any that I have experienced. Our paper was sent to reviewers clearly lacking in any knowledge or expertise in the field, who repeatedly asked for picayune changes in formatting that could have easily been handled at the typesetting stage. The editors were no better, merely acting as paper shufflers and not stepping in to stop the insanity. I will never send another paper to PLOS One again, and have actively advised my colleagues and trainees to avoid the journal like the plague.