Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the feedback I received from the editor was very constructive, elaborate, and helpful for further developing the paper.
Motivation:
One reviewer made multiple unprofessional comments that were many times scientifically incorrect and advised to reject. The second reviewer described the paper as "well-written" and asked for minor revisions. The third reviewer also requested only specific revisions. The editors comments referred only to the first reviewers "strongly suggested rejection" opinion and rejected the manuscript based on this with no option of providing a rebuttal against the incorrect claims and statements or opportunity to revise.
Motivation:
There was no option to select "no response received" for this survey. After waiting almost an entire year and constantly contacting the journal for a status update they were unable to inform me of the reason for the delay. Eventually I withdrew my submission and submitted elsewhere as I could not afford to wait even longer with no response at all. It took another month or more just to get confirmation of the withdraw and no reason or apology was given.
Motivation:
My manuscript was accepted in the middle of submission process then suddenly I received further request of major changes. I didn't revise it but I withdrew the paper and submitted it to a higher impact journal in its original state prior to first admission and was accepted in 5 weeks with minor changes requested and done. The most annoying experience with OMJ is that the reviewers sent comments that were not scientifically sound and insisted to be done.
Motivation:
The editor was very professional
Motivation:
The editor was polite and efficient. The quality of the reviews was very good and made me realize that my paper was not.
Motivation:
Overall experience with the review process was very positive. Not only the comments from the Referees but also from the Editorial Staff were very constructive and indeed helped us to improve our manuscript. The relatively long time for the first round of revision might be explained by the festivities over Christmas and New Year. The only point that I suggested the Journal to improve was the system for submission of the files of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewer's reports were quite positive, they suggested only a few minor changes. However, the final decision was still rejection without giving any explanation. I think it is not quite fair after 4,5 months of waiting.
Motivation:
The review process was very surprising for my coauthorand I because we wrote the article following the structure of the article in the journal and we thought that our work couldfit with the journal. We asked to the journal a more precise explanation respect the evaluation done respect our work but they answer that it was not possible because they receive "hundreds of submissions" and their policy is to first screen articles as to fit in terms of our aims and objectives before going to the next step of developmental reviews. Our article not reached this second step to give us more feedback.
Motivation:
My coauthor and I had a very great experience with Business Horizons.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
Motivation:
The reviewers were critical, and their comments, criticism, and suggestions actually helped improve the manuscript a lot. The editor was very helpful too. So we thanked them in our acknowledgement section.
Motivation:
review process takes too much time
Motivation:
The paper went through three rounds of review by 2 clueless reviewers, one of whom was probably the editor. One reviewer went completely wild in the first round about how invalid one of our methods was (and obviously didn't know what it was); after we defended it the same reviewer acted like an expert in that method and accused us of not applying it carefully (my co-authors are world experts in the method!). The second reviewer (who was probably the editor) didn't read past the introduction. After two rounds of review, the second reviewer finally read the paper and raised totally off-the-wall objections. The editor finally accepted the paper conditional on us making changes that would produce an invalid analysis, so we withdrew it instead.
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed by two knowledgeable reviewers who read the paper carefully and had good suggestions for improvement.
Motivation:
The comments were fair and improved the quality of my paper. I sent my manuscript July 2nd and got the response on November 2nd and for the second round sent Dec. 11th and got the response on Feb 11th. It seems the journal follows the deadlines strictly (4 months for the first round and two months for the second round). The process was really smooth although the comments were challenging.
Motivation:
One reviewer had advised rejection and one reviewer advised major review. The editor decided to reject. The first review was a hasty one.
Motivation:
It took about 3 years and 3 rounds of review. I guess reviewers were different in each time. After all paper get rejected. No specific argument was made at the end. Although death of the editor was responsible for part of the delay but anyway handling the issue of my paper was not fair (as I perceive it).
Motivation:
the editor and the associate editor seemed to have difficulty communicating, with each other and with me
Motivation:
it was a lengthy process, but the evaluation was fair, informed and useful
Motivation:
I had three reviewers with completely different comments. Therefore, it took me a while to make the changes. But after re-submission, my paper was not send to the reviewers again and it was rejected instead. The editor gave me three reasons for it, i.e. three points that had been requested by the reviewers. But I did not agree at all, because I changed these three points. My impression was that my paper was read very superficially. I complained to the editor and asked whether my paper could be reread. But the editor answered that the decision was final. I found the review process very unfair because the superficial reading was the reason why my paper was not sent to the reviewers again. I would have preferred that the reviewers had judged themselves.
Motivation:
The journal sat on my paper for four months before it was rejected. Several times I attempted to contact the editor for an update without success. Finally, after over two months of silence, I received an email saying the following:
"I'm sorry. I'm a bit behind on decisions. I hope to get caught up soon. Thanks for letting me know.
Seth"
This email was unhelpful. The journal then sat on my paper for another two months before rejecting it for reasons I do not understand, given the reviewers seemed to enjoy it and their critical feedback was mild.
"I'm sorry. I'm a bit behind on decisions. I hope to get caught up soon. Thanks for letting me know.
Seth"
This email was unhelpful. The journal then sat on my paper for another two months before rejecting it for reasons I do not understand, given the reviewers seemed to enjoy it and their critical feedback was mild.
Motivation:
The editor clearly wants a speedy process, and thanked the authors for resubmitting quickly.
Motivation:
Process went smooth, reviews of high quality. Overall process from submission to acceptance took 7 months.
Motivation:
It was an excellent review process. I highly recommend this journal for researchers in the financial services marketing.
Motivation:
It took one month just for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Then, three and a half months later, we receive the rejection notice with just two very scant reviews that evidenced very little effort from the reviewers, some of whose comments actually contradict factual data in the paper. Either we presented the paper very badly or they did not bother reading it thoroughly.
Motivation:
The manuscript was accepted after discussing with the editor regarding the final reviewer request and why we could not address this. This is an excellent journal with excellent editors who actively review the reviewers opinions and weigh them against that of authors and content of the manuscript before a final decision is made. A very sound (and fast) review process that is fair and rigorous and would recommend this as the endocrine journal of choice to researchers.
Motivation:
The reviewer did not make any attempt to review the scientific argument in the paper but simply went on to find fault with the terminology used and express his/her opinion about how it was not possible to understand the paper. The review was simply about authors being unclear about the underlying models, being confused about key statistical concepts followed by a tutorial on the reviewers thoughts about the terminology used in statistics. There was no attempt made to objectively assess the proposal in the paper or to demonstrate if it works or not. There was no consideration at all of our methods or any specific pointer to the validity of our findings - two pages filled with non-specific opinions that could very well address any paper at Statistics in Medicine. The editors simply served as gate keepers for the reviewers. I would avoid this journal if you are presenting new methods and are not a famous personality.
Motivation:
Review was fast and reviewer comments were reasonable. I would submit manuscripts to this journal again.
Motivation:
After more than 5 months, we received the following e-mail:
"I am writing with reference to manuscript XXXXXX titled "Automatic ...." Please allow me to clarify that your manuscript was sent to a large number of editors and, up till now, we have not received any evaluation reports on it, which may indicate a lack of interest from the editors' side regarding the topic
of your manuscript. Thus, unfortunately, we will not be able to consider your manuscript in the journal."
So, after 22 weeks, they decided that the manuscript was not of interest for this journal. Serious journals make this kind of decisions in 1-2 weeks.
"I am writing with reference to manuscript XXXXXX titled "Automatic ...." Please allow me to clarify that your manuscript was sent to a large number of editors and, up till now, we have not received any evaluation reports on it, which may indicate a lack of interest from the editors' side regarding the topic
of your manuscript. Thus, unfortunately, we will not be able to consider your manuscript in the journal."
So, after 22 weeks, they decided that the manuscript was not of interest for this journal. Serious journals make this kind of decisions in 1-2 weeks.