Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This journal is really irregular. no respect to the author
5 review process and each time new reviewers even after minor revision (changing few sentences). 11 reviewers revise our paper in 20 months. and some time their comments was inconsistent.
Even one time we has sent an email to the editor to ask about status and after one month he said the paper is rejected in first glance (after two revision) and did not respond to our email any more. after one month another revision made on our paper!!!!
finally after 5th revision we decided not to resubmit our paper into this journal.
I can surely say that they waste our time for two years and I will never ever send anything for this journal.
5 review process and each time new reviewers even after minor revision (changing few sentences). 11 reviewers revise our paper in 20 months. and some time their comments was inconsistent.
Even one time we has sent an email to the editor to ask about status and after one month he said the paper is rejected in first glance (after two revision) and did not respond to our email any more. after one month another revision made on our paper!!!!
finally after 5th revision we decided not to resubmit our paper into this journal.
I can surely say that they waste our time for two years and I will never ever send anything for this journal.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled in a professional manner and in good time. The reviews were of a high quality and the editor was fair in their decision making.
Motivation:
After acceptance, the decision was rescinded due to a mix up with the Editor in Chief (who was newly appointed) haven't not read through the revised manuscript. He did so promptly and the paper was then accepted, but this process did delay the publication slightly and was not all that professional. This brought down my rating of the process, which was otherwise good (I would have given a rating of 4 had this not happened).
Motivation:
This was overall a very positive and rewarding experience. The editor and reviewers provided constructive, thoughtful, and supportive feedback. The editor was timely in notifying us of the decisions and was prompt responding to emails. Ultimately we ended up with a stronger paper thanks to this process. I would highly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript got some delay as the journal had difficulties finding reviewers. However, they always kept me up to date on the progress, which was very much appreciated.
Motivation:
Magnificent work of the Action Editor and reviewers. Their comments were very helpful and insightful, but also required much of work to be done.
Motivation:
Editor suggested submission to a specialty Journal, which be did.
47.7 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Extremely lengthy delays; received detailed reviewer comments that I was required to address even after I had been notified that the manuscript had been accepted for publication
Motivation:
Quality reviews that improved the manuscript.
The turn-around times were excellent! We didn't have to pay a fast track fee
The turn-around times were excellent! We didn't have to pay a fast track fee
Motivation:
I received 3 rather good quality, rigorous reviews. The reviewers were knowledgeable on the topic of the paper and helped me improve the paper. Moreover, the statistical analyses were evaluated by methodological adviser. Nice work! RI/IR is taking scientific rigor seriously, other journals could learn from this, including a few higher-ranked ones.
The first round took rather long, and the lack of online submission system meant that it's not possible to track the status of the manuscript without contacting the editors. However, communication with the editorial office was excellent.
This was the first time I have submitted something to RI/IR and I was very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the process.
The first round took rather long, and the lack of online submission system meant that it's not possible to track the status of the manuscript without contacting the editors. However, communication with the editorial office was excellent.
This was the first time I have submitted something to RI/IR and I was very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the process.
Motivation:
We got two excellent reviews in just a few weeks. Reviewers suggested major changes in the manuscript: splitting it into two smaller papers - one theoretical which is not yet ready, and one methodological brief report. We followed these suggestions.
Motivation:
We had 2 positive reviews and one negative, and editor decided to reject our paper without a chance of a revision. The reviews were fast, unbiased and informative.
Motivation:
Very fast and rigorous review. The paper was much improved, especially in the theoretical part.
Motivation:
I have not received the reviews of the manuscript, so he took it out of the journal.
Motivation:
Very fast response and qualified review.
Motivation:
Waited too long for the decision to reject the article.
Motivation:
mBio's submission system was relatively painless (hosted by eJournal press). Files are uploaded before metadata is entered so you don't have to wait for the pdf to build. The journal has unnecessary limits on article length and the number of supplemental files, and doesn't take latex files. Editorially rejected articles are transferred (with permission of the author) to mBio's sister journal AEM, so if you are planning to submit to AEM, it is probably worth shot at mBio first.
Motivation:
The reviewers were not familiar with my field of research and did not understand the implications of the results. They seemed only to be interested in their own types of investigation in the field of combustion. One of them made rather condescending comments. The other was partially positive. It might have been possible to submit a revision, but the attitudes of reviewers and editor dissuaded me, and I published a revised paper in another, better journal, with which I am very happy.
Motivation:
There were very few substantial problems indicated in the first review round, and these were all fixed in our first revision. However, R1 kept misunderstanding one visualisation we used and required a couple of rounds of random changes to see that the original was, after all, the better one to use. Unfortunately the editor didn't really rein them in either.
Motivation:
Excellent and very thorough reviews, in after about 6 weeks. Helpful points and useful criticism which helped us improve the paper. Second review round took another while but we didn't get any reports, just the editor's acceptance, so don't know whether it was sent out for review again or whether the editor handled the revisions. Overall, happy with this experience. The one thing I don't like about this journal is that they don't do author proofs.
Motivation:
Amazingly fast reviewing times considering that we got very thorough reviews by absolute experts in the field. The reviews helped us to improve the paper a lot. The journal editor was also very helpful, thinking along with us about images and other aspects of the paper. Although the paper could have been sent out for review after revisions, the editor informed us that the detailed action letter and the strength of the revisions made this unnecessary.
Note that articles for TiCS are generally commissioned by the editor. We were invited to submit based on a strong presubmission proposal.
Note that articles for TiCS are generally commissioned by the editor. We were invited to submit based on a strong presubmission proposal.
Motivation:
Frontiers provided a very unfriendly and uninformative rejection notice: "The claims are vague. There is not sufficient content to merit publication in this journal." The rejection came in the week that Frontiers journals were in the news for being too lax and accepting.
Motivation:
Good, knowledgeable reviewers. Helpful editorial assistance.