Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.
Motivation:
There was a delay in publication process after final acceptance
Motivation:
Fantastic efficiency and good peer review comments
Motivation:
The paper was immediately rejected because it was considered as out of scope of the journal. The positive things are the nicest submission system I've seen, and the impressively quick reaction by the editors (it took them just a few hours to reply). However, I wrote a rebuttal that the journal lists that topic in their scope, and I cited several similar papers that were published in journals of similar scope. I have never received a response, so my experience is mixed.
Motivation:
The second round review took long time. One of the reviewer was very gifty and gaved wrong remarks. I have wasted a lot of time and review rounds clarifying this reviewer about the wrong statements he has. This reviewer took long time to respond since the first reviewer was already satisfied.
Motivation:
First review outcome took a long time. However the article was submitted to a special issue.
Motivation:
The editor declared that there were not enough reviewers in the scientific community to assess all the papers submitted. Therefore, the editors could arbitrarily chose to reject papers without asking for the opinion of specialist reviewers. In this case the editor was clearly wrong since the paper was accepted a few months later by another very respectable journal.
56.3 weeks
61.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was very good and timely processed. Reviewer comments were very helpful in improving the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
It would be nice to get more than one reviewer, because like this changes are subjective. And often motivated by reviewers own career goals.
Motivation:
Only complaint is just one reviewer. More opinions would be welcomed. My reviewer was young, probably student. That was obvious from the comments. Having someone more experienced to review the paper would be beneficial.
Motivation:
The first review round took a very long time!
Motivation:
The reviewing process was swift and professional. Reviewer comments were appropriate and helpful in improving the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor didn't assign reviewers for a very long time. After we inquired he asked us to send him some names, only to reject the paper without sending it for reviews, instead providing a "review" by a "member of the editorial team", who seemed to be clueless as to what the paper was actually about.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.
Motivation:
We understood exactly what the Journal of Management Inquiry wanted. They are a rigorous, though rather creative journal (the "New Yorker" magazine of the academic management world). Their comments helped the paper a lot.