Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Providing a single reviewer opinion in 4.5 months seems to me highly inefficient. Otherwise the content of the review was fair.
Motivation:
The reviews were of high quality and always led to a significant improvement of the article. The editorial work was likewise excellent and very careful. The editors cared about the contents a lot, they didn't just function as "translators" of the reviewers' views.
Motivation:
There were quite a few changes required from the editors, but all reasonable and straight forward to implement.
Motivation:
A very speedy and efficient process.
Motivation:
The first round was lengthy but the subsequent rounds were fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Two reviewers either did not understand the paper or were intentionally blocking it.
Motivation:
During the review process, the editor changed. The first editor was quite enthusiastic about the paper (revise and resubmit). But the new editor not so much (reject in the second round).
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
Motivation:
One reviewer liked the paper, the other one did not. That's always a difficult starting point, but we changed the paper substantially to take on board the second reviewer. After the revisions, the second reviewer still didn't like it and added new criticisms including many that are blatently wrong. Sadly the editor didn't pick up any of this. Given that the journal doesn't do multiple rounds of revisions, that's it.
Motivation:
Desk rejection, but very fast (1 day) and with reasons clearly stated and a range of alternative outlets suggested.
Motivation:
This was for a special issue, which might explain the quick review and decision.
Motivation:
They suggested LSQ as a journal with a more substantive (rather than methodological) focus.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
There were two reports, one positive, one negative. I quote the negative report below:
"I took a detailed look at the paper. I find it rather technical. [15-words summary of the paper deleted.] Although the authors develop some new methods to do so, I think it is not appropriate for the Advances of Mathematics."
This is not a report, it is - at most - a quick opinion. One can reject a paper because it doesn't fit into the scope of a journal, or because one considers it not to be good enough for the journal, one can even reject it for being too "technical" for a general math journal
(although this is really a matter of taste - virtually all non-trivial math papers are technical), but it should not take 10 months to do so. By acting in this way, the editorial board "burned" my paper. Too much time had passed, I started giving talks on the results,
the preprint had been cited half a dozen times, there was not enough time to send it to another high end journal with an equally long decision time, with the risk to get it again "almost published" (one report, much longer than the one quoted, was after all positive), i.e. rejected the result would then never appear in print at all.
"I took a detailed look at the paper. I find it rather technical. [15-words summary of the paper deleted.] Although the authors develop some new methods to do so, I think it is not appropriate for the Advances of Mathematics."
This is not a report, it is - at most - a quick opinion. One can reject a paper because it doesn't fit into the scope of a journal, or because one considers it not to be good enough for the journal, one can even reject it for being too "technical" for a general math journal
(although this is really a matter of taste - virtually all non-trivial math papers are technical), but it should not take 10 months to do so. By acting in this way, the editorial board "burned" my paper. Too much time had passed, I started giving talks on the results,
the preprint had been cited half a dozen times, there was not enough time to send it to another high end journal with an equally long decision time, with the risk to get it again "almost published" (one report, much longer than the one quoted, was after all positive), i.e. rejected the result would then never appear in print at all.
Motivation:
The reviewing process takes too much times...
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
very slow in communicating about acceptance after resubmission
Motivation:
The manuscript kept going back and forth between the Editor and us, each time requesting clarifications, many of which were already given in past iterations. We finally decided enough was enough.
Motivation:
Adequate review process in the first round, but after revision in accordance with the reviewers' requests, the manuscript length was increased, and the editor thus requested that significant cuts be made which was burdensome and did not make the manuscript better. Word limits seem more important than quality.
Motivation:
They review process took too long for such a poor report.
There is no option to reply to the editor or the reviewers.
There is no option to reply to the editor or the reviewers.
Motivation:
Although it was immediately rejected, the editor explained extensively why it was rejected and gave some useful comments on the script.
Motivation:
The review process takes very long.