Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editor's rejection was well motivated and useful
Motivation:
The review process was fast, especially acceptance after revision and resubmission. One of the reviewers' reports was not very helpful as it did not address the content of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Everything was OK, I can recommend this journal.
Motivation:
My article was very complex and also a bit speculative when I submitted it. Both reviewer were evidently experts in my field (crystallography) and both found the weak spots of the article. But, both were absolutely polite and VERY CONSTRUCTIVE in their comments. I received from them around 10 pages of text. This shows how much work the reviewers had to spend on my article. Even though their comment cut to the bone, I was quite impressed with the quality of the reviews.
I also want to commend this journal on the speed with which they publish the accepted articles. It took only 6 weeks from acceptance to a printed issue (and full citation).
I also want to commend this journal on the speed with which they publish the accepted articles. It took only 6 weeks from acceptance to a printed issue (and full citation).
Motivation:
The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.
Motivation:
The entire process was pretty quick. The Editor works at a fast pace, I think.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
One reviewer said "reject" the other reviewer said "revise and resubmit." The editor chose to reject it, which is fine. The reviewer comments are pretty helpful. I believe I would have a stronger paper once I address the reviewer comments.
Motivation:
Our paper was a major improvement of a previous, rather questionable paper published in Angewandte Chemie by a big name in the field. However, it was rejected based on the fact that the topic was not interesting enough. So, why could the big name prof. publish his work? This makes no sense is is not a fair process.
Motivation:
There was really no justification except its not interesting enough to a broad readership. However, they have, over the past years, published much more specialized papers from the big names in the field. I guess the name is more important than the scientific quality.
Motivation:
I would have appreciated a speedier rejection since the overall reason was that the subject was not of suficcient interest
Motivation:
I asked a specific question about the requirements for clinical trials pre-registration and received an immediate reply from the editor stating that our paper did not meet their requirements, but might be considered for publication in their sister journal for feasibility trials. I am very grateful to have received such a clear, prompt response.
Motivation:
The delay in receiving reviews was quite long, but the editor was very responsive to my queries and explained that it was due to issues with the reviewers that were, in my opinion, beyond their control.
Motivation:
The review took 6 months, and the report was quite generic
Motivation:
The review took more than a year for a paper which was not so long
Motivation:
Referee's report was not shown to the authors
Motivation:
High level journal, but the delays are sometimes unpredictable
Motivation:
Quite rapid, rare for a pure mathematics journal
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
I was very disappointed that a little over 2 months after submitting my paper, I heard that it had not been sent out for review because of the standard reasons "including the overall fit of the paper for AIDS and Behavior, journal priorities, number of papers awaiting assignment to an issue, as well the methods and results of the study." Normally, I would expect to hear this type of feedback within a week, so that I may submit elsewhere in an efficient manner. This was very disheartening. If a journal sits on a paper for so long, I would at least expect some reviews in return.
Motivation:
Fast manuscript handling, with helpfull and fast communication in the submission stage about submission requirement details. Referee reports with useful comments. Overall, an excellent process.
Motivation:
The editor at this journal is a disgrace to journal editors. His tenure should be terminated forthwith. The editor did not respond to any form of contact (email, telephone calls, etc.) as we tried to find out what had happened to our manuscript after well over a year of waiting for a response.
Motivation:
Fast and professional work of editorial board. Accurate and helpful reviews.
Motivation:
A very quick review and publishing process. An unedited article version was available online 9 days after acceptance, final version 2 weeks later.
20.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The journal was extremely slow to assign peer reviewers, admitting after three months (and several enquiries from us) that they had not yet sent the manuscript out for review. Peer review comments were ultimately received from three peer reviewers, among whom there was considerable disagreement. The reviewers who criticised the manuscript were fair in their criticism and we felt that their feedback would have been relatively easy to integrate into the manuscript. However, after nearly five months, the editor recommended outright rejection, pushing our publication timelines back significantly (p<0.05).
Motivation:
In Ecological Entomology is very poor contact with editors. After waiting 3 months for any message from the editorial board, I send few times mails (or using author centre contact forms) to editorial board with ask for decision. It was necessary to send questions to other members of the board as editor handling my paper did not answer for my messages. I took 7,5 months to get first and the only review of my paper.
Motivation:
The unacceptably long processing times speak for themselves. And even these were reached only by repeated "facilitation" of the editors.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not reviewed, but checked by someone who decided it unsuitable. In spite of this I think that a rapid response in a respectful letter saved me time enough to send the manuscript to another journal the same day. I don't agree with these methods, but at least they did not cause unnecessary delays.
Motivation:
The standard text was specially uninformative and unnecessarily impolite. Just to reject something without actually analysing the text does not need so much time: The e-mail was standard, praising their "rapid" pre-review process. I am an editor myself and consider this behaviour as a lack of respect towards the Authors
Motivation:
Review process generally ok, no specific comments
Motivation:
In spite of the extremely quick and, to us, disappointing decision, the editor had carefully reviewed the paper, provided valuable feedback, motivated the decision convincingly, and suggested alternative outlets.
Motivation:
Two out of three reviews may serve as example of bad will and incompetence. One of the reviewers explicitly acknowledged that a substantial part of the work is beyond his/her scope. Still, his review was considered valid.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process went fine. In the end I only got feedback from one reviewers, the other one did not provide any comments.
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with useful editor response!