All reviews received by SciRev

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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).

Motivation: Although my article was rejected, the review procedure was very fast, and communication with the journal very efficient

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.

Motivation: Very slow review process for just two reviews, which were actually both very positive.

Motivation: Although I was disappointed with the outcome, the decision was fair.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Motivation: quick process, useful reviews