All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: I did not agree with the criticisms of the reviewer. They had a fundamental problem with the methodology, even though it has been well established elsewhere. I believe I had addressed these criticisms, including multiple citations to the approach.

Motivation: 4 months after submission, a first request from author's side was answered with "accepted with minor revision" by a junior editor. One review was available. Some 2 months later the manuscript was rejected with "revise before review" by a chief editor. No reason was provided for this calamity.

Motivation: The principal suggestion for improvement is to provide a summary of reasons for rejection instead of a boilerplate letter that gives the author guidance on whether the manuscript was unsuitable for reasons of topic (originality, topicality, subject-specificity), quality (research, analysis, writing) and/or other reasons. This need not be lengthy (one paragraph can suffice) but nevertheless is far more useful than a standard rejection letter that tells the author nothing, even on a general level.

Motivation: This manuscript was a software article. Despite the following issue the reviewing process was fast and simple.

The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.

Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!

Motivation: Reasonable review process. Editors acted upon advise by reviewers who had clear opinions about the manuscript and whose criticism was fair given the mismatch between the aims and scope of the journal, and the character of the manuscript.

Motivation: The journal had bad luck in selecting a reviewer that gave some suggestions in the first round, and then, when these had been addressed in a revision, focused on different things in the second round and requested a whole other range of changes. A second reviewer right from the start might have balanced this and made the assessment fair and more complete in the first place. When after a third submission the journal finally brought another reviewer onboard (on my, the authors' request) this new reviewer had suggestions that in many ways would take the manuscript back to its original (first submission) form. Several of the changes and additions done in the previous two revisions (on request by reviewer 1) were now retracted/changed back again, to satisfy the second reviewer. Now in my view, this significantly improved the manuscript, and therefore it was worth it. To the credit of the journal editor shall be said that he/she recognized this and "sided" with the second reviewer (and me, the author) after the final submission, and accepted the manuscript swiftly.

Motivation: Taking over 13 months to review an article, and then rejecting it, is a waste of valuable time that the scientific community cannot afford in these days, when rapid creation of a publication record is absolutely crucial for young people in the process of establishing themselves as independent scholars. Other journals manage to review manuscripts faster (see many other reviews on this webpage), and one round of reviews should not have to take over 13 months. This is said irrespective of the final decision (reject); I would express the same criticism also if the manuscript had been accepted.

It shall be added that (1) the manuscript was not sent to external reviewers until seven months after submission, which means the extreme delay was primarily on behalf of the journal's editors, and (2) the final decision was only conveyed to me (the author) after email reminders/repeated inquiries about the state of the review process. My overall impression of this journal is, therefore, that it cares little about its (potential) authors and is in great need of improving its routines for handling of manuscripts.

Motivation: Rather long review process but I received excellent reviews that helped improving the manuscript substantially.

Motivation: From my point of view, the reviewer was no expert in my field and it seemed that she/he did not read the manuscript carefully. She/He criticized the manipulation although I used a typical manipulation in this field. This was the main reason for rejection.

Motivation: Reviewers have carefully read the paper and really improved it.
The reviewing process was quick.

Motivation: I was told by an editor that SSM has a very high rate of desk rejects (and I have been on the harsh end of this in the past), but as our piece was sent out I was very impressed by the efficiency of the process. Reviews were helpful and appropriate (although almost inevitably after 7 reviews some were starting to contradict each other). The paper was improved by the process and I will gladly publish with them again.

Motivation: STHV editorial team was very supportive throughout the process and we fell that the paper has improved substantially thanks to the review process. Even though the paper has taken a bit long from submission to acceptance, it seems that this delay has been due mainly to the reviewers rather than the editorial team.

Motivation: It took more than 3 months to get the feedback on the article. I appreciate useful comments, It allowed me to submit elsewhere the corrected version.

Motivation: It took 10 months after a number of solicitations to the associate editor (who claimed difficulties in finding reviewers). This could have been considered in the final decision since 10 months is not a short review time and reviews contained addressable comments in the end.

Motivation: The editor did not address plain contradictions in the statements of Reviewers, including the fact that one of the Reviewer took claims from the manuscript and cited them with opposite meaning in its own review (literally adding "not" in sentences). While it is acknoledgeable that review process may be discretionary on aspect such as general quality of paper, novelty, etc. plain contradictions should not be allowed to get through expecially when pointed out as the authors did. Unfortunately the only action proposed by EiC (when asked about the matter) was to undergo again a complete review cycle starting as if it was a new submission. The authors were skeptical this was a fair way to address the situation and did not proceed.