Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Despite formally a rejection, the handling of case by the editors of JPART was excellent. They were courteous, quick and professional. The three referee reports were all constructive, highly professional, courteous and detailed. The author could hardly have received more valuable advice from elsewhere.
Motivation:
This is not the only positive case of this kind in my scholarly life. In this type case, the editor, who is a veterate authority in the respective scholarly field, obviously made it his cause to help the author to navigate through the process. This meant in this case, and meant the same in others, that the editor used his discretion as to what the referee reports imply. One way to express the character of this type of procedure is to indicate the editor as a coach, who sees in a manuscript values that can be cherished, and therefore assumes a constructive stand and helps the author to fulfil the requirements that the editor defines, using his discretion.
Motivation:
The editorial role did not appear to give the sufficient guidance to the referees. The editor rejection of the first positive evaluations of the two first referees after the first revise-and-resubmit round appears as curious. This is especially so as it did not become fully credible that it indeed is the journal policy to recruit a third referee once the two original referees have been recommending acceptance. The process was not transparent to the author to the degree that the author could have verified if the third referee possibly was a member of the journal editorial board rather than somebody else, such as truly an external anonymous referee. The disappearance of this third referee also appears as curious, as the article was of standard length and simple in its structure. As to the two new referees that the editor recruited next, the process appears as somewhat unusual. How can it be that an article that first was almost accepted could become worse and worse despite rounds of rewriting as demanded by the editor and/or the referees? This journal has no very elevated impact point value, and publishes besides scholarly articles also articles devised by practitioners.
Motivation:
This was a very rigorous review process. I felt the first revision was very useful and improved the manuscript substantially. But I believe subsequent revisions were unnecessary and superficial, but had to be done basically to satisfy a review who I felt didn't fully understand the study. Nevertheless I appreciated the thoroughness of the process and I am grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their efforts, although the whole process did take some time from start to completion (presumably due to the multiple revisions requested).
Motivation:
Although rejection was disappointing, the reviewer comments were very useful in helping me reconceptualizing the study and tightening up the manuscript to make it methodologically more sound and theoretically more relevant. I was also able to shorten the manuscript substantially and was thereby able to submit it to the journal that was actually my first choice and more directly related to the discipline (the previous version of the manuscript was too long for that journal).
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.