Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 23.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: after 11 days I requested a Status of the manuscript, which appeared still as "submitted" - answer to the request:
The status of your manuscript is:
Your manuscript has been submitted and it will be reviewed for formatting and relevancy as soon as possible.
6.4 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: This paper won an award at a national conference, and the editor solicited this paper for submission. We are outside the field and unfamiliar with the field conventions. Given the circumstances, we were surprised to get an outright rejection rather than the opportunity to revise the paper to meet the field's conventions.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: One review was 1 sentence long, asking why anyone would be interested in the topic. The other review addressed unclear abbreviations in tables and made small suggestions for the figures; only substantive question was central to the paper.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Reason was generic: "Due to the large volume of excellent manuscripts that are submitted, editors are often forced to make decisions based on topic priority."
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Paper used advanced methods for an analytic study design relating to a question of social disparities in health using high-quality data from multi-million dollar project with no recent equivalent from 12 years ago. Reviewer dismissed paper in 1 sentence: data were "REALLY old".
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Dataset was more than 3 years old, so journal would not consider despite reasons given in cover letter such as addressing several past studies published in the journal with better data.
51.2 weeks
58.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Accepted
Motivation: The overall process took very long and I was not always notified about delays. I had to send quite some notifications to remind the editor about my submission. Additionally, the editor did not always keep her promises which resulted in some frustration on my end. To be honest, I would not recommend anyone to submit a paper to this journal. It's a very tiresome process.
5.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
2
Rejected
Motivation: Editorial management: excellent.
Review quality: very poor. The paper has been rejected because results are not consistent with reviewers beliefs. Unfortunately, reviewers have not provided any scientific argument and reference to support their opinion. Overall, not even a single suggestion has been provided to improve the analysis and the manuscript.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer focused on matters of presentation and style, commenting in detail about graphs and tables without addressing at all the paper's topic.
17.4 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers were favorable in recommending publication (one accept and one suggested a couple of revisions), but the editors rejected it anyway, with no opportunity to revise. Plus, the 6 month review time was unprofessional.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: Swift review process. After submission of the revised manuscript competent editors assessed the revised version without another round of reviews and accepted it immediately (I figure upon seeing that apt changes were made).
23.7 weeks
54.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
1
Rejected
10.4 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am very satisfied about my submissions to this journal. The comments of the reviewers always helped to improve the article.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Although my article was rejected, the review procedure was very fast, and communication with the journal very efficient
9.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fair and constructive, and the length of the whole process was expectable given the character of the article (length, scope).
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Review process was speedy and adequate. However, some editorial details had to be fixed (switching decimal commas to decimal points in figures, to comply with journal style) which proved to be very tardy due to misunderstandings and technical problems. This significantly slowed down the procedure of final acceptance of the article.
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very good handling of the manuscript. Good and competent reviewers and a rather speedy process.
28.2 weeks
28.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very slow review process for just two reviews, which were actually both very positive.
8.3 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: The editor gave a one sentence justification for rejection, saying that the paper was not a strong enough contribution to the literature, despite having previously given an R&R decision and us fulfilling all the requests made by the reviewers.
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Although I was disappointed with the outcome, the decision was fair.
28.2 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I was happy with the quality of the reviews and the eventual outcome, but 6.5 months felt like a long time to wait for the initial decision.
6.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: There was one very positive review of the first vesion and one negative. For the revision the paper was not sent to the original positive one, and sent to another who was strongly antagonistic. The editors made no justification of the decicion not to permit a further revision to meet the demands of the new reviwer of the revised version.
26.0 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The two (out of two) reviewers' comments were very helpful. They commented on few aspects that needed to be included to improve the paper. Although these changes were very demanding, however, the reviewers' were generous to reconsider the manuscript once these changes are incorporated, I was quite motivated by their comments and did the major revisions required. The editor of the journal was excellent too, in giving me the opportunity to do the major revisions and resubmit. I spent lot of hours in improving the manuscript and it was accepted after the major revisions were considered. I am very satisfied with the overall experience with this journal.
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Out of the four reviewers, I got only two reviewers' comments that were in the negative. Both reviewers' pointed out the flaws in the manuscript which they already published just few years back, in one of their earlier papers without any issues. The reviewers' failed to look at the additional contribution of the paper, although it was mentioned in the introduction as well as emphasized in the conclusion. Of course, I agree that there were some limitation in my paper, and I already mentioned those as caveats. However, the reviewers' brought that out as a point of rejection. It's funny, because the earlier paper published by the journal didn't have some of the key aspects (that our paper addressed), both in terms of method and results, however was published. I think the reviewers' comments were somewhat biased. I will not be surprised if on of the reviewer's is the one whose paper we used as the basis to extend and improve on. I thanked the reviewers' and the editors, none the less, although expressing my objections to the first reviewers comments. Using the comments, none the less, I did minor revisions to the manuscript to avoid any confusion, and submitted to another outlet.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
21.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
2
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews took a long time to come back (compared to other venues) and the quality of the reviews was very poor. The LaTeX system used failed repeatedly to build the submission, even though it was written using the journal's own stylesheets and no other modules. The editors were helpful, however as a special issue I am not sure how much this can be generalized from.
21.7 weeks
51.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: Although the review process was very lengthy, it was meticulous, and I got the impression that the editor was keen to try to help us to produce a finished product which was of really good quality. We felt we had achieved this in the end.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The article was assigned to an editor, who stated that it was not of interest to the journal. The submitted paper was a mortality study based on workplace conditions, but the editor to which the article was assigned has only published in the field of post-colonial literature analysis. It was difficult to understand why that individual was an editor at this journal.
8.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: decent reviews, overall duration acceptable
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: quick process, useful reviews
8.0 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: strong reviewers; overall duration was fine; very quick to go online after acceptance
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
13.0 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: very good review process which made the manuscript substantially better
not superfast, but equally time is given to properly review a manuscript