Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very responsive editorial team.
The reviewer is professional and helpful.
A great paper submission experience.
The reviewer is professional and helpful.
A great paper submission experience.
5.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
tl;dr: We could have saved so much time if one of the reviewers gave all of their suggestions in a single round.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
Motivation:
Two editors reviewed the research note and deemed it not fit.
Motivation:
Extremely poor handling of the manuscript by a guest editor. Worst experience ever when it comes to editorial handling of a manuscript. 1 reviewer proposed rejection, which can happen and is not such a problem, however the handling of the editor was horrible. Furthermore second reviewer requested minor revisions which makes it rather odd. Paper got stuck in the editorial proces for months after.
Motivation:
The editor took 6 months to decide whether to send the article for external peer review. Six months after receiving the article, he sent it to a reviewer, after we had written to him twice asking for a decision (even though the editor would decide to reject the article without a review, we would prefer this to delaying the process, as his delay in responding was hindering our intention to send the article to another journal). Once the article was sent to an external reviewer, the first review was completed in 18 days. However, the process stalled. A second reviewer was not sought, nor was the decision communicated to the authors. Finally, the editor sent us a rejection decision after we had written to him again asking if what we were experiencing was considered a normal pace.
Our complaint is not about the decision. Of course we respect the decision of the reviewers. Our complaint is about the lack of ethics on the part of the editor who, in particular, delayed the review process and, in the meantime, prevented us from submitting the article to a new journal. This is something that has never happened to us before.
Our complaint is not about the decision. Of course we respect the decision of the reviewers. Our complaint is about the lack of ethics on the part of the editor who, in particular, delayed the review process and, in the meantime, prevented us from submitting the article to a new journal. This is something that has never happened to us before.
35.4 weeks
35.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
The review process took a very long time and the administrator stopped responding to our periodic requests. The reviews themselves indicated that the paper was not read in detail and poorly understood. Even though the reviewers indicated a positive overall impression, the submission was rejected.
Motivation:
I've had faster desk rejections.
Motivation:
A desk reject, but with three lines of thoughtful feedback from the editor and a recommendation for a different journal.
Motivation:
Rapid desk-reject for a topic considered out-of-scope. I appreciate the rapid response.
Motivation:
Quick rejection with a generic reason that the editor claimed cannot be fixed but did not provide much specifics.
Motivation:
The justifications for rejection are poor. One of the comments was: "The sentence should be changed to: "Quantifying pain pressure threshold provides the clinician…" that is not a problem that justifies the rejection of a paper.
Motivation:
The process was extremely slow, especially after I received the conditional acceptance. It took 10 months (!) from conditional acceptance to online publication. I would definitely not recommend any junior scholar to publish with JPR at the moment. In total, it took 16 months from the first submission to publication. Any inquiries with the editorial team were ignored by the administrative staff, no replies to emails at all.
Motivation:
I deeply suspect the editor-in-chief has a group of deeply connected people holding academic positions in India, and screens with bias.
Motivation:
It is the worst experience we have recently had with one of our submissions, even though our manuscript has been finally accepted for publication. To mention just a few problems: incompetent handling editor that was later replaced, unresponsive journal staff, delayed review, delayed proofs, delayed online publication… I personally do not think I would ever submit another manuscript to Frontiers in Microbiology or recommend this journal to any of my colleagues.
Motivation:
I waited for more than three months and still indicate editor invited. Horrible experience. Do not recommend for any one to consider this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were helpful to improve my manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was very good with insightful comments, however also very slow.
One of the reviewers insisted twice to citie a paper (probably his paper) that we had to reject twice and argue about this paper not being relevant to our study.
One of the reviewers insisted twice to citie a paper (probably his paper) that we had to reject twice and argue about this paper not being relevant to our study.
Motivation:
In terms of time, Tourism Review and the Editor conduct reviews in a timely manner. However, the quality of the reviews were not good, suggesting a lack of knowledge in the topic.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were positive about our manuscript and one was lukewarm. Suggestions for improvement were extensive but straightforward. After 15 weeks of non-stop work (days, nights, weekends, holidays), we submitted a revision, which was accepted.
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to reviewers, who did not seem to assess the manuscript in depth. There were factual mistakes in one review and the other review completely ignored large chunks of the manuscript. I was advised by colleagues against submitting to this journal and the prediction was the rejection will cause the editor to suggest a lower journals, which is exactly what happened. Not sure I want to try this venue again.
Motivation:
Editors and reviewers are committed to delivering to the readership good-quality papers.
Motivation:
Due to the format of the journal, a lot of the methodological details had to be put in the Supplementary Materials. Yet my impression was that the journal did not make the SM easily accessible for the reviewers. Two of the three reviewers mentioned that it took them some searching to find the SM, which contributed to some of their confusions in reading the manuscript. Other than that the review process was fast and the feedback were mostly very helpful.
Motivation:
The process of publishing the article went well and quickly, and I think the comments of the reviewers for the revision were correct and fair.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. Reviewers asked important questions about the paper that contributed significantly to improving the final version. Accepted after the first revision.