Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Although the comments of the reviewers were good, editor advised rejection as it was deemed outside the scope. This rejection was responded on by us, but know answer was provided.
Motivation:
Initial rejection letter was 100% boilerplate text that provided no context for decision or who made it. Follow-up correspondence revealed that PLOS Genetics apparently has an internal policy that gene expression profiling studies should have follow-up experiments to provide insight into biological/genetic mechanisms, although this is not stated in the journal scope or criteria for publication.
Motivation:
Elife manuscript sumbissoin system was relatively painless, although office staff requested reformatting of supplemental files before review, which was unnecessary. Review process was fast and fair, but quality of reviews was not as high as I hoped.
Motivation:
Comments by reviewers but also by the editor, who summarized the main points in need of improvement for me. This was helpful.
Motivation:
We sent several emails to the editor to get information whether the review process is still in progress and have not heard from them. The last reviews were completed at about 7 months past resubmission, but we never received a decision. Thus, we waited two more months and subsequently decided to withdraw the manuscript and submited it elsewhere for publication.
Motivation:
Time between resubmittance and acceptance was very long, even though only minor changes needed to be made. Editor handled conflicitng reviewers' comments well.
Motivation:
Fast and good review, fast publication
Motivation:
The review process was very quick wich is good. The quality of the two reviews we recieved however was not acceptable. One reviewer had compiled a list of what he called "major issues" that included questions that are at best of very minor relevance but mostly methodlogical questions that the reviewer had failed to retrieve from a table, the text and the supplement. In addition, the reviewer did not have a clue about the methods used and advised things that are statistically just wrong. Reviewer 2 was not as bad but also had only limited knowledge in the field. We wrote to to the editors asking for a third reviewer, but recieved a standard reply. There was basically nothing, the we could make use of for revising this manuscript for submission to the next journal.
Motivation:
I got a courtesy mail after 3.5 months because the review took longer than anticipated. The reviews were quite substantial.
Motivation:
Inquiries about manuscript status are not answered. The journal sends back a manuscript a year later saying it is not fit because they did not find reviewers. No other reason given.
Motivation:
We did not pay for fast track publication, however, we were pleased with the speed of review. Further, the reviewers' comments were useful, and, we believe, resulted in an improved manuscript.
Motivation:
I am impressed by the rapid response of the OAMaced.J.Med.Sci. ,the excellent reviewing of the paper with valuable comments, rapid decision of acceptance after revising and resubmitting of our paper.
Motivation:
This is the fastest journal and I got a reply to every questions I had at every instance of the review process. The editorial team also did a great job,.
8.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was rejection based on the fact that it did not fit enough within the journal objectives. The rejection came very fast, and they even suggested other journals that we could submit the article with.
10.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
In-depth reviews and a relatively fast process. Great communication from the editor.
7.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Efficient process with reasonable reviews that have improved the paper.
Motivation:
It is unacceptable to have a paper under review for almost 10 months with no response as to when a decision might be expected.
Motivation:
Qualified refree reports.
Motivation:
Mixed feelings about the process. Most of the review reports were thorough and have certainly helped us to improve the paper. They were critical and at the same time quite positive and down-to-earth, which leaves little to be desired. On the other hand, there was one persistent reviewer whose comments were not appropriate, and the editor did not recognise this and stepped in, as we think he should have. Further, another con is the lack of communication with the editor (no reply on two emails after enquiries about reason behind the long delay).
Motivation:
Fifteen weeks after receiving the manuscript the reviewer said us that, as part of this work was presented in a Conference and accesible in pdf, they couldn't publish it. We pointed out that the manuscript sent to the journal had much more work, so they decided to continue the revision process.
Motivation:
The delay in revising the manuscript was because they lost or misplaced it. If I hadn't sent them an e-mail asking for the final decision, they wouldn't have noticed that the document was misplaced.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected and I disagreed with some of the criticisms, I felt the reviews were thoughtful and thorough. Ultimately, the manuscript was rejected based on the associate editor's opinion that it the impact of the results wasn't substantial enough for this journal.
Motivation:
Editor rejected manuscript based on a subjective opinion of methodological issues with study without consulting reviewers. I previously submitted the manuscript to another journal, and none of the reviewers had the issue on which the editor based his decision. Editor claimed that length of time to render decision was due to a missing associate editor.
Motivation:
The journal should be applauded for offering (1) a fast review process, (2) useful editorial comments and (3) seemingly knowledgeable reviewers (3 out of 4 reviews were well-developed).
However, core arguments used to explain the rejection decision breathed an air of "discipline-related politics" rather than a focus on true shortcomings in terms of technical merit, craftsmanship and significance (Schwab, 1985). Surely, various other comments were wholly justified, however, the manuscript partly fell victim to an ongoing debate about the position of economic geography relative to related disciplines. In that respect, the manuscript turned out not to fit the journal's scope after all.
In sum, I strongly recommend authors to submit to this journal when their papers fit within a strictly spatial perspective on economic geography. You will get good quality reviews and fast decision-making. In contrast, manuscripts with a focus on relational economic geography are better submitted elsewhere.
However, core arguments used to explain the rejection decision breathed an air of "discipline-related politics" rather than a focus on true shortcomings in terms of technical merit, craftsmanship and significance (Schwab, 1985). Surely, various other comments were wholly justified, however, the manuscript partly fell victim to an ongoing debate about the position of economic geography relative to related disciplines. In that respect, the manuscript turned out not to fit the journal's scope after all.
In sum, I strongly recommend authors to submit to this journal when their papers fit within a strictly spatial perspective on economic geography. You will get good quality reviews and fast decision-making. In contrast, manuscripts with a focus on relational economic geography are better submitted elsewhere.
Motivation:
I only selected revise & resubmit to continue with this review. I never received any review or accept/reject decision from the editor. I contacted the editor numerous times over a 2 year period, and was informed that the reviews would be forthcoming very soon. I finally withdrew my manuscript for consideration after 2 years and submitted the manuscript elsewhere. Very disappointing and unprofessional process after paying a $150 fee.
Motivation:
Fast processing time, but rather poor quality reviews. We only received superficial comments that only marginally improved the contents of the paper.
Motivation:
The problem with this journal is the costy article charge fees around 870 euro as it is an open access journal