Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They review process took too long for such a poor report.
There is no option to reply to the editor or the reviewers.
There is no option to reply to the editor or the reviewers.
Motivation:
Although it was immediately rejected, the editor explained extensively why it was rejected and gave some useful comments on the script.
Motivation:
The review process takes very long.
Motivation:
Very fast review with accurate and useful comments.
Motivation:
Revisions are not constructive
Motivation:
Good revisions; 180 days from 1st submission to final decision
Motivation:
One of the 2 selected reviewers never gave its final decision on the revised version of the manuscript. The editor had to contact a member of the editorial board as a novel reviewer for the revised version. Hopefully the member of the editorial board was a real expert....but I got a response of the editor only after having suggested to withdraw my manuscript and send the you tube link to the Bob Marley Song 'I don't want to wait in vain for your love'.
Motivation:
The first round review was a little slow given there were only 2 reviews but subsequent rounds got faster and the comments were balanced overall.
Motivation:
Review period was reasonable in length however it is questionnable whether the reviewers were the most appropriate - this seems to be a particular concern for social science papers.
Motivation:
Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).
Motivation:
Although the reviews (4) were very challenging, they helped make for what we hope will be a lasting contribution to the literature. Top-ranked journal for a reason!
Motivation:
Quick and detailed reviews. Reviewers are trying to help and not to judge.
Motivation:
I have received very useful reviews which improved the paper, in particular in the first round. However, I think that the review process was unnecessarily long.
Motivation:
Comments from reviewers and the editor were formulated in order to improve the quality of our submitted work.
Motivation:
After 20 MONTHS the editor just sent the following strange and unprofessional report:
1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.
Motivation:
I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
Motivation:
The editor informed me that an expert recommended him to reject the paper. This was after 3 months the paper should be reviewed. I sent several letters to demand a copy of the Reviewer's comments - if such a reviewer existed. My emails were ignored.
Motivation:
Too lengthy review period
Immediately accepted after 5.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editor Barry Trott was very professional and communicated with me regularly with updates on the process. He responded to all my e-mails in a day or two. This was in fact and best communication with an editor that I have ever had.
Motivation:
PLOS One took a long time to find an academic editor.