Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rapid turnaround, there were very minor revisions so it was a good experience
Motivation:
The review was professional and timely.
After the revision was sent it was quickly processed and accepted.
It was clear that the reviewers had the relevant background
After the revision was sent it was quickly processed and accepted.
It was clear that the reviewers had the relevant background
Motivation:
A brevia paper in Ecography
Motivation:
My paper was sent to review by two reviewers, and was accepted within 7 months
Motivation:
The expedience of this review process was a plus. However, 2 of the 3 review reports were unsatisfactory: one barely commented on the quality of the manuscript and instead focussed on particular aspects that could easily be addressed in comments, while the other had a number of confusing (at one point commenting on a missing figure panel, when there was no such figure panel intended for or ever mentioned in the manuscript). That the editor relied on these subpar reviews to make a decision is unfortunate. It is understandable that this is a fairly high impact journal with a great number of submissions, but that the reviews were not scrutinized is, again, unfortunate.
Motivation:
We got very interesting comments from reviewers.
Motivation:
We specifically ask the reviewer not to consider someone as reviewer, as our findings are highly critical of that person's work. Yet reviewer 1 was clearly that person (exact same viewpoint and same wording of specific parts of their papers) and picked out every possible misunderstanding to reject the paper.
Motivation:
Very long wait for a desk rejection. Repeatedly asked about status to no avail.
Motivation:
Referee's report was shallow and useless despite the time taken to complete it. Referee did not seem to have the qualifications necessary to review the methodology and the subject of the article.
Motivation:
The editorial process was poor, We did not receive any substantial comment about our manuscript, just say that Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in this manuscript that prevent further consideration.
But it does not show evidence of these methodological flaws, it is only a personal appreciation without scientific foundation
But it does not show evidence of these methodological flaws, it is only a personal appreciation without scientific foundation
Motivation:
They suggested an automated transfer to the sister journal Advanced Engineering Materials. However, it's worth noting that (1) Advanced Engineering Materials is ranked much (8/415 vs. 146/415) lower than Advanced Materials in the Web of Knowledge and that (2) it is an open-access journal with an APC of US$4330.
Motivation:
We had a good experience with the journal. The referee report made us aware of an alternative interesting method, which we implemented and bettered the paper. We also feel that Economics & Politics is more open-minded in terms of topics.
Motivation:
Neither of the reviewers nor the editor (on hindsight) thought that a hypothetical treatment was a clever idea. In that sense, a desk reject would have been less painful, but then we did get more detailed comments on the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review was very fast and fair and the editor thoroughly edited the paper's language and style.
Motivation:
Review process was good and decently rapid. Reviews were moderately helpful (one more so than the other).
Motivation:
Very good experience. Some of the reviews were a bit intense but the reviewer implied in their message that they didn't expect us to consider some of the recommendations. It took some effort with two revisions before an acceptance in principle, but the editor was very helpful.
Motivation:
The editor was quick to respond to the author’s emails related to the manuscript. The first decision was to reject and resubmit. One reviewer accepted with minor corrections. The second one has a concern about the format of the manuscript and some of the technical terms. We submitted the revised manuscript, the second decision was a major revision. The first reviewer with minor corrections accepted the revision. The second reviewer still had some concerns about the content. We submitted the revised manuscript, the third decision was to accept it in its current form. The second reviewer accepted with no further corrections.
Motivation:
The journal kept the manuscript for more than 17 months and the handling editor did not respond to any of my mail regarding inquiries of the status. After getting tired of no responses, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and sent a mail to the journal's email account regarding withdrawal and explained the reason for being ghosted by the handling editor. The journal also did not respond for more than 10 days and then we contacted the chief editor who finally apologized for the situation and the manuscript was withdrawn finally. Note that I tried to contact the chief editor in between but he was too busy with lots of paper and could not check on my manuscript and asked me to contact the handling editor again. 17 months and no response from the handling editor are just too much. At least, we deserve a referee report at the end. But alas, we did not get any. Thankfully, we can submit the manuscript elsewhere.
16.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The handling editor was really quick in their work and the review time taken was relatively less. Also, they would reply to any queries instantly regarding the submission. The report attached was also good as the reviewer mentioned the importance of our work in detail in it and asked for some simple clarity in one of the steps in the proof which we provided and the manuscript was accepted. The good part is that the journal is diamond open access and one need not have to pay any APC for publishing open access.
Motivation:
It was terrible. First it was sent off to two reviewers and both had a few comments on it. We addressed them and resubmitted the paper. However, since the beginning it was clear that the section Editor did not read the paper at all. Then after we resubmitted it, we received the comments from three reviewers. The editor felt like asking one more reviewer. One reviewer from the first submission was happy with the revision and had no further comments. The additional reviewer had no comments at all (this tells you the poor selection of the reviewers) and the other reviewer from the first submission strangely enough this time had more comments and was not happy at all with the revision despite we replied to all their minor comments. Not only that but they also wrote a nasty comment to offend us and the Editor did not do anything about it. In the end the Editor rejected our paper without even reading it! What a poor Editorial work. I would certainly never submit any other paper to this journal.
Motivation:
The editors treated the manuscript fairly. They suggested that the manuscript be transferred to Scientific Reports.
Motivation:
Very fast and target-oriented publishing process. Nevertheless, the quality of the reviews seems to suffer under this time pressure. Since this is an open access journal, publication is somewhat expensive, but everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published.
Motivation:
I had a very pleasant experience with this journal. Reviewer reports were constructive and relatively fast. Definitely recommended.