Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The Associate editor said "whilst there is some interest in how this work has been done, the three reviewers had varying views but on overall the feeling was 1. the work would not change the overall view of this area given recent FDA pronoucements and 2. that the statistical aspects were potential problematic in places. Overall, taking all things into consideration, the paper would not be currently competitive against other papers submitted to the journal."
We believe that when reviewers flag methodological concerns it is a concerning if editors make the inference that there are potentially problematic statistical issues without feedback from the authors - reviewers may not necessarily be as well versed in the methods as the authors and thus this situation reflects editors simply acting as gate keepers.
We believe that when reviewers flag methodological concerns it is a concerning if editors make the inference that there are potentially problematic statistical issues without feedback from the authors - reviewers may not necessarily be as well versed in the methods as the authors and thus this situation reflects editors simply acting as gate keepers.
11.1 weeks
20.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Ecological Modelling was the fastest journal from submission to publication that I've ever experienced.
3.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reasonable speed for answer, good quality reviews that added value to the paper.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were thorough, to the point and useful. Communication was polite and clear.
Motivation:
After I submitted the paper I sent 6 e-mails (one every 4 months) to understand what is going on. The replies to my e-mails provided contradictory information: one said that a decision will be reached soon and three months later the e-mail said that they are still waiting for a reviewer,
Motivation:
The whole process took a lot of effort and was very unclear. At first the manuscript appeared to be accepted, however after we chose not to pay for an English language check by a firm suggested by them and had it done by our own universities language center, the manuscript was rejected. The reason why the manuscript was rejected remained unclear. We attempted a complaint with someone listed as chief editor but never got a response.
Motivation:
Fast turnaround, there were sompe problems with the online submission system.
Motivation:
Reviews were constructive and polite, however somewhat general and motivated from the reviewers personal view on the topic.
Motivation:
The reviews were thorough, polite, and useful.
Motivation:
PLOS Medicine has a special "presubmission inquiry" process. You can send in your abstract to this process and within 3 days you will receive an advise on whether to send in your whole manuscript for a longer review process or whether to send it to a different journal.
Motivation:
Communication was swift and polite.
Motivation:
Very swift turnaround, professional behavior of the editor, and useful cmments provided by the reviewers.
Motivation:
After waiting for approximately 7 months I have received a short letter (four to five lines) in which the editor explained that they do not accept my manuscript for publication and they provide no comments to rejected manuscripts.
Motivation:
Very rapid turnaround. The article was a controversial one, and I expected at least one hostile reviewer to respond to, but the editors were very fair in sending it to reviewers who would be objective.
Motivation:
Not well motivated why the manuscript was not sent out on review.
Motivation:
Associate editor had read the manuscript and the persons name was given in the decision.
Motivation:
Poorly motivated why the manuscript was not sent out for review.
Motivation:
It seems they had problems finding reviewers, hence the long first round. Otherwise they were rather fast and the paper appeared online after a month; with page number.
Motivation:
It took forever.
Motivation:
After I submitted the paper I sent more than 10 emails to understand what is going on. none of my emails was replied. I withdrew the article after one year of my submission. 6 months later I took an email from the editor which says the paper was accepted with minor revisions. this was the worse submission process ever.
Motivation:
fair journal with reasonable waiting times and reasonable revisions.
Motivation:
the final review report did not touch the core issues, rather it used the fitness with the journal as the reason for rejection. But if so, it should not have taken 14 months to decide whether the paper fitted the journal or not.
Motivation:
The only issue is that the reviewer's comments (while kinda insightful) focused on a really small part of the paper itself, without addressing the general idea. Overall, however, I am satisfied with the review process.
Motivation:
The peer review was well above my expectation and satisfaction. Reviewers provided valuable comments and high words of appreciation. Editor was kind enough in extending his/her willingness on the submission.