Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).
Motivation:
Although the reviews (4) were very challenging, they helped make for what we hope will be a lasting contribution to the literature. Top-ranked journal for a reason!
Motivation:
Quick and detailed reviews. Reviewers are trying to help and not to judge.
Motivation:
I have received very useful reviews which improved the paper, in particular in the first round. However, I think that the review process was unnecessarily long.
Motivation:
Comments from reviewers and the editor were formulated in order to improve the quality of our submitted work.
Motivation:
After 20 MONTHS the editor just sent the following strange and unprofessional report:
1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
Motivation:
I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
Motivation:
The editor informed me that an expert recommended him to reject the paper. This was after 3 months the paper should be reviewed. I sent several letters to demand a copy of the Reviewer's comments - if such a reviewer existed. My emails were ignored.
Motivation:
Too lengthy review period
Immediately accepted after 5.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editor Barry Trott was very professional and communicated with me regularly with updates on the process. He responded to all my e-mails in a day or two. This was in fact and best communication with an editor that I have ever had.
Motivation:
PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor.
Motivation:
I think the editor of this journal did an outstanding job (despite of the fact that she rejected our submission). We received a editorial letter that summarized the different reviews very well and suggested a clear direction for the revision. After the reject in the second round we received an elaborate explanation.
Motivation:
The whole process was a bit slow and the only reviewer report we received did not contribute much to the improvement of the paper; rather we just lost 5 months with it.
Motivation:
The submission occurred at the end of July and was in the 'awaiting Associate Editor assignment' stage for a long time. After 2.5 months I emailed them and got a response about a week later with a rejection from the editor. The response was not very long and detailed. However it was written very constructively and they encouraged me to submit a new version of the paper after major revisions.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews do not match the quality of the journal.
Motivation:
Reviews quality was OK but processing and publication times were really fast.
Motivation:
The process was slow, the reviews were detailed and fair, and the outcome is a much better paper.
Motivation:
It was a fair review, but 3 months is a long time to wait, just for a rejection.
Motivation:
This is the first and only time I have had a manuscript rejected without it being reviewed by external reviewers of by an editor; and also the first time I've had a rejection but without any reason being provided for the rejection.
42.1 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviews were very valuable and constructive, from someone who was very knowledgeable of the field. The reviews enhanced the quality of paper a lot.
Motivation:
The decision was very fast. They stated the suitability of the article on the journal and suggested where can I publish the manuscript.
Motivation:
Everything was fine, fast, and convenient (the editorial office would copy edit our manuscript so I was not required to send a revised version), but when we received the proofs we discovered that substantial changes had been performed on our manuscript, is some cases changing completely the meaning of what we were stating. We had to correct all passages. It would be better to let us to prepare the revised version.
Motivation:
The review process was OK, but I had to complain to the editorial office to receive the information that the work had been accepted (they informed me that they "already had" the review), after acceptance there was a long time until the proofs were sent to me and, after that, a long time until the manuscript appeared in the "ahead of print" section of their website. Again, there was a long period until a doi number was assigned and then I discovered the manuscript had already been published (without receiving any information from the editorial office). Anyway, it is a small journal published by scientific societies (so, no major publisher is involved), still, they should maintain a bit of professionalism in handling the manuscripts.
Motivation:
They mentioned the focus of their journal and where potentially my manuscript can be sent.