Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
One useful and constructive review plus comments from the editor who has clearly read the paper, too. The paper was conditionally accepted after the first round.
Motivation:
The rapid review system was excellent. The review process was efficient and rigorous and my paper was much improved as a result.
Motivation:
The submitted manuscript described a novel research not covered in any prior publications. The reviewers were clearly incompetent in this field and, without suggesting any relevant references, kept adding comments which showed poor understanding of the topic. We decided to withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript was published after 3 months in another Elsevier journal with similar impact factor as the Journal of Membrane Science.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were largely acceptable and improved the final publication version.
Speed of submission to review and acceptance was not longer than 1 month. If I had to criticise it was the length of time (up to 6 months post accetptance) for the online version to appear.
Speed of submission to review and acceptance was not longer than 1 month. If I had to criticise it was the length of time (up to 6 months post accetptance) for the online version to appear.
Motivation:
The reasons given were very general and poor after 9 months waiting for the revission
Motivation:
The editor selected experienced and knowledgeable reviewers and they prepared excellent reviews which improved the manuscript quality.
Motivation:
The article was not accepted. I withdraw it after two years and several attempts to know what was happening with it.
Motivation:
An extraordinarily long review process. 42 weeks for the first review period of just 2 reviewers to be completed - unacceptably long. I contacted the editors multiple times during this process, and each time I was given very little information as to why the review was delayed. I'm hesitant to submit here again; however, I've reviewed for this journal and seen a very short turnaround, on the order of 12 weeks.
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience publishing with this journal - feedback was prompt and clear, and everyone was quite congenial in their communication with me. I would absolutely publish with them again.
Motivation:
Review times could have been shorter but overall I was extremely satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
The content of the reviews was adequate, but our contribution took nearly one year to review.
Motivation:
The review process was professional, efficient and handled very well. The editor works with you to improve the manuscript for publication.
Motivation:
Relatively fast decision
Motivation:
The review was handled badly because I had to make multiple revisions, yet on every review the decision was 'minor revisions'. Even after very positive reviews and a 'minor revision' decision the manuscript was sent out to additional (new) reviewers. The changes I was asked to make after each review by the editor could have been made on the first round of review if they had all been brought up then. This led to much frustration and took up more time than necessary.
Motivation:
Unlike promises made by other new journals, eLife stood by their promises. The review process was fast, fair and transparent. This was by far the best review experience I have ever had, and that for a journal that has ambitions to rival the best. If you have a great paper, forget about PNAS or Nature Comm, send it to eLife!
Motivation:
This was an invited article. It had 3 favourable referee reviews and one grumpy one (who obviously disagreed with our views - see also http://dbkgroup.org/on-scientific-censorship-and-bitchiness/), and it was sent to this person who inevitably dug their heels in despite a detailed rebuttal. I sent a further rebuttal which eventually was looked at by 'senior editors' who clearly did not bother to read the detailed arguments at all - some of their comments were wrong. Consequently I consider this a joke journal and shan't be sending anything to them again, nor likely any of this stable's output. The ability of editors to censor science is disgusting (see above blog link). Authors put their names to papers; if stuff is wrong it will be pointed out, to authors' detriment. These editors hid under a cloak of anonymity, despite my request that they should identify themselves if they were going to have an intellectual argument. Clearly they were not interested in that, as the only communications I got were from the Office.
Motivation:
A fast, fair and high quality review process.