Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I found it unfair that when two reviewers recommend acceptance and one reviewer had a "mixed feeling", the journal decided to reject the paper outright. I was not given a chance to address the concern raised by the third reviewer.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were extremely positive. One reviewer raised one major concern, but the editor was quite explicit about how to address that question. Right after we followed that suggestion, the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
One reviewer rejected the paper because we did not cite a paper that is written in Japanese.
Motivation:
The situation was unfortunate but understandable. I wished that the editor had informed us earlier about the situation so that we did not have to waste three weeks.
Motivation:
The associate editor handled the submission really well. It was slightly frustrating that the editor-in-chief took their time (about two-months) to put a final stamp on the paper, after the associate editor issued acceptance.
Motivation:
PNAS gave the blanket "this study lacks broad appeal" rejection notice. Tremendously annoying to wait for five weeks and then hear that!
Motivation:
Reasonably fast, though it's a bit tannoying to have to wait for two weeks for what is essentially a desk rejection.
Motivation:
I got the two reviews in July 2014; both suggested "accept with minor revisions". Then after a full 8 months of waiting, I unexpectedly got an associate editor report with the verdict of "revise and resubmit". This AE had obviously not seen I had already substantially revised the paper. Fortunately it so happened that my revisions addressed virtually all comments, but in all it was one of the weirdest procedures I've seen yet.
Motivation:
Language is known to be slow so 21 weeks is reasonable (so I'm told). I feel like the associate editor was way harsher than the reviewers, which were both critical but also constructive. An editor less sceptical about the line of research pursued would have recommended revise and resubmit based on these reviews. Still, the overall quality of the reviews was good, and overall the experience was helpful.
Motivation:
I was very impressed by the short turnaround time for the first round of reviews, which seemed rigorous and attentive. I also received very detailed and helpful comments from the editor. The only delay came after submitting the first revised version; I emailed the editor after about 10 weeks, and received an acceptance a week thereafter, asking for some further very minor revisions.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
Motivation:
Excellent revisions, but too much time passed from the first submission to the final acceptance of the manuscript.
7.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Usefull reviews and a quick revision process.
Motivation:
The comments of the first reviews took a few months. They included little of use. The editing of our article was excellent und asiduous.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, particularly for a journal that advertises a "fast publication schedule". I had to contact the editorial office on multiple occasions and was asked to provide additional suggestions for potential reviewers. Furthermore, it is clear that acceptance was very unlikely from the outset, as the editor ultimately rejected the basis of the study.
Motivation:
I was disappointed with the reviewers' comments. They liked the paper, but were not able/willing to give fundamental critique or suggestions which could improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Generally very good handling of the manuscript; first review report very good and instructive. Duration of second review round surprisingly long (10 weeks) given that the editor's decision after the first review round was "accept condition upon minor revisions".
Motivation:
Received 3 very helpful reviews in the first round, after major revisions finally accepted without further ado. Overall process was very fast and the editor was very professional. One of the best review experiences yet.
18.7 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very quick first assessment
Motivation:
Review process was very long, with no information.
Motivation:
No clear reason for rejection was provided.
Motivation:
While the comments from the reviewers were very good and helpful, the time it took to receive them was very long.
Motivation:
The ultimate decision seemed to stem from a skepticism of the existence of latent taxa. The associate editor (who did much of the reviewing) was convinced that we had dichotomized a continuous variable arbitrarily, when in fact we found two clusters using two-step cluster analysis. We provided literature that explained cluster analysis and contrasted taxometric methods against arbitrary splits, but all for naught. A statistical consultant was brought in to review and talked about William Stephenson's Q-technique. After consulting with our quantitative methods faculty, we are still not sure why. We had tested for moderation by cluster membership and the associate editor thought we should have tested for mediation instead, though the theory that drove our study was not consistent with mediation.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not seem to have sufficient expertise in the manuscript topic, but they provided correct reviews concentrating on the parts they understood. After submitting our responses to the first round of reviews, one reviewer stated that his comments were not addressed!? We resubmitted the same responses in the second round and then they were accepted by this reviewer. Two reviewers dropped out during the process and the editor added two additional reviewers after the first round.