Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Surprisingly quick review/handling process. I'd appreciate it.
Motivation:
weak reasons for rejection
Motivation:
Single Peer-Review means that the reviewers know the author's name
Motivation:
Though the outcome was favorable, and the reviews were good, the timeline for this review was unacceptably long. The first review took 11 months. The message we received after review was that necessary revisions were minor and that the editor expected to be able to accept our changes without sending it to out for review. We made these revisions. For reasons never explained, she did try to send it out for review, and after another 6 months, with multiple messages to the associate editor that were not returned until I got the editor involved, it was read and accepted by the associate editor. It never did receive a second set of reviews. I can appreciate that some of this was affected by covid-related delays, however I had two other articles submitted after our first submission to this journal and published well before this paper was published. So other journals dealing with covid-related delays were able to manage getting papers through the pipeline in under seventeen months.
Motivation:
After more than a year received a rejection with the following justification: "We do not have a full referee report, but quick opinions gathered indicate that this is an interesting paper but not quite at the level required for Forum of Math, Sigma. Thus, we cannot accept the paper."
Motivation:
The journal brands an "open review" process, which I entered. I never received any response regarding this. After a long period of review, the first decision was to accept my manuscript. The peer review reports were minimal and focused on one point only. The journal then demanded a Portuguese translation of my article, which I submitted. The editor then contacted me to say that my Portuguese translation was not accepted and cited journal guidelines that state that in such cases, the article may be rejected. I demanded to know what exactly was the problem with the translation, but have not received a reply since.
Motivation:
Some useful critical points that perhaps have been addressed in revision, although the manuscript and its overarching message or content were at odds with the editor-in-chief's preferred outlook or perspective in order for manuscript to be forwarded for review or accepted.
Motivation:
Some viable suggestions and novel insights in the review process. However, it is somewhat strange that the editor-in-chief tends to append additional specific comments along the way that are separate to the assigned reviewers' comments so they effectively become an additional reviewer - the editor-in-chief holds a very specific outlook or perspective that manuscripts must follow in order to be peer-reviewed or accepted.
Motivation:
Editorial decision was quick. We also submitted an appeal and after 2 weeks we got another more detailed rejection letter.
Motivation:
Review was based on editors' beliefs about the relationships between variables rather than anything based on science.
Motivation:
"We hope that you will not view this as a rejection but rather that it reflects the Editorial Team's opinion on the fit of your manuscript with our aims and objectives. It may be well received by other journals with a different focus. We also hope that our expedited yet rigorous process gives authors the opportunity to rapidly move to another Journal."
Motivation:
I think that the decision to reject the manuscript just because there are errors in the order of the template is a strict decision
Motivation:
The first round of review was rather fast. However, out of 3 reviews, 2 where troublesome:
- The first one was about another submission than mine! Possibly the reviewer swapped two parallel reviews when submitting; possibly the problem lied in the journal information system. Anyway, the managing editor did not notice, which in itself, means something. I immediately contacted the editor, but my email remained unanswered.
- The second one was essentially a reviewer’s attempt to coerce citations (like explained in https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360?login=true) which is ethically questionable. Concretely, the review was built around a list of 13 papers supposedly about the subject, among which 11 were from the same research group (good point: the other two papers were meaningful indeed). The editor did not notice too, but considering the absence of answer to my first email, I did not email about the ethical concern raised by this second review.
- The third one was a classical review, with a summary of the article, a short highlight of its strengths, followed by few major concerns and a list of minor issues. As this review was enriching, I decided to revise and resubmit despite the 2 other reviews. A noticeable fact was that the managing editor changed in between.
The second round appeared to be longer than the first. Long after the average time claimed on the journal website (8 to 12 weeks), I contacted the editor, and I received a void response (something like, "sorry, but it depends on the reviewers' responsiveness"). All my further emails/inquiries remained unresponded to.
Finally, after almost 26 weeks, considering this was longer than necessary to evaluate a revised paper, I withdrawn my submission by email.
- The first one was about another submission than mine! Possibly the reviewer swapped two parallel reviews when submitting; possibly the problem lied in the journal information system. Anyway, the managing editor did not notice, which in itself, means something. I immediately contacted the editor, but my email remained unanswered.
- The second one was essentially a reviewer’s attempt to coerce citations (like explained in https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360?login=true) which is ethically questionable. Concretely, the review was built around a list of 13 papers supposedly about the subject, among which 11 were from the same research group (good point: the other two papers were meaningful indeed). The editor did not notice too, but considering the absence of answer to my first email, I did not email about the ethical concern raised by this second review.
- The third one was a classical review, with a summary of the article, a short highlight of its strengths, followed by few major concerns and a list of minor issues. As this review was enriching, I decided to revise and resubmit despite the 2 other reviews. A noticeable fact was that the managing editor changed in between.
The second round appeared to be longer than the first. Long after the average time claimed on the journal website (8 to 12 weeks), I contacted the editor, and I received a void response (something like, "sorry, but it depends on the reviewers' responsiveness"). All my further emails/inquiries remained unresponded to.
Finally, after almost 26 weeks, considering this was longer than necessary to evaluate a revised paper, I withdrawn my submission by email.
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
some reviews are general and focus on form not content.
Motivation:
Very fast review speed, good reviews (helpful to improve the journal). In general a smooth review process.
Motivation:
3 months to desk reject!!!
Motivation:
comments from the reviewers were very constructive, pertinent, and of high quality. the manuscript improved much with the comments. The main difficulty is to fit the article according to the journal's guidelines since there is no Latex template.
35.7 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Reviews were comparatively minor as many of the issues simply required further clarification and re-phrasing. Despite being rejected, the reviewer comments were manageable or certainly worthwhile having another attempt to revise.
Motivation:
Thorough and fair review that highlighted some key undiscovered pitfalls. Clear and rapid review process. Blind review process by default, although one reviewer chose to unveil identity.
Motivation:
DON'T send to this journal. Very disorganized. Took six months for desk reject, during which did not replied to any of my emails.
Motivation:
Three months of review and the journal sent us only two reviews of very bad quality. Poor English and non-sense sentences. One of the two reviewers recommended the acceptance and the other one recommended reject; the editor decided for the latter one.
Motivation:
Journal from the repurational NCCN community. Smoothy review process. The editor is very responsive and helpful in the submitting journey.
Motivation:
Editorial desk rejection with short justification arguing that the contribution was not relevant enough for the journal.
Motivation:
We received helpful reviews, but the peer review process took over a year.
Motivation:
There were issues with the interactive forum. After replying to the reviewers, one of the reviewer's tabs was stuck in "Resubmit manuscript" without any further comments or questions. That made me feel it was an error with the manuscript state. After requesting several deadline extensions and exchanging far too many messages and emails with the editor and the editorial office, they sorted it out and the paper changed the state to "accepted" immediately.
Motivation:
After 36 weeks of keeping the manuscript, it was rejected without any review report. The editorial message was also like desk rejection.
Immediately accepted after 15.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
I am happy to have my paper accepted within four months of submission, but I am surprised that it was accepted right away with no feedback from any peer reviewers. The editor only had some very minor editorial comments (e.g., add some current references).
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 103.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After more than 3 months the editor could not reach any reviewer to review my manuscript. However, the editor did not communicate us any information about the process. So, we were waiting more than 3 months and expecting to receive news while the manuscript were not even sent to reviewers.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed by 3 reviewers. One reviewer said that the overall quality of the paper cannot be judged based on a single review and wrote lots of comments, which I revised then thoughtfully. When the revised manuscript was sent to this reviewer again, he/she recommended a rejection. The other reviewer recommended a rejection straight at the beginning with incomprehensible reasons, e.g., the introduction is too short and the conclusions are too long.