Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
First of all, there was a delay of several weeks without even an acknowledgement that the paper had been received. Then when I enquired I got the reviews suspiciously soon - almost by return. But the biggest problem was the lack of expertise/knowledge of the world of TESOL on the part of the reviewers, and their close-mindedness about having their views challenged.
Motivation:
In my view it should have been a 'recommend revision and resubmission' decision. Instead, two of the reviewers seemed more concerned with the offence that might be caused to the 'high and mighty' in the profession.
Motivation:
Reviewers didn't really appear to have engaged sufficiently with the details of the text, and/or make enough effort to understand it properly.
Motivation:
Reasons given for rejection were not detailed enough.
Motivation:
Editor's rejection was well motivated and useful
Motivation:
The review process was fast, especially acceptance after revision and resubmission. One of the reviewers' reports was not very helpful as it did not address the content of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Everything was OK, I can recommend this journal.
Motivation:
My article was very complex and also a bit speculative when I submitted it. Both reviewer were evidently experts in my field (crystallography) and both found the weak spots of the article. But, both were absolutely polite and VERY CONSTRUCTIVE in their comments. I received from them around 10 pages of text. This shows how much work the reviewers had to spend on my article. Even though their comment cut to the bone, I was quite impressed with the quality of the reviews.
I also want to commend this journal on the speed with which they publish the accepted articles. It took only 6 weeks from acceptance to a printed issue (and full citation).
I also want to commend this journal on the speed with which they publish the accepted articles. It took only 6 weeks from acceptance to a printed issue (and full citation).
Motivation:
The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.
Motivation:
The entire process was pretty quick. The Editor works at a fast pace, I think.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
One reviewer said "reject" the other reviewer said "revise and resubmit." The editor chose to reject it, which is fine. The reviewer comments are pretty helpful. I believe I would have a stronger paper once I address the reviewer comments.
Motivation:
Our paper was a major improvement of a previous, rather questionable paper published in Angewandte Chemie by a big name in the field. However, it was rejected based on the fact that the topic was not interesting enough. So, why could the big name prof. publish his work? This makes no sense is is not a fair process.
Motivation:
There was really no justification except its not interesting enough to a broad readership. However, they have, over the past years, published much more specialized papers from the big names in the field. I guess the name is more important than the scientific quality.
Motivation:
I would have appreciated a speedier rejection since the overall reason was that the subject was not of suficcient interest
Motivation:
I asked a specific question about the requirements for clinical trials pre-registration and received an immediate reply from the editor stating that our paper did not meet their requirements, but might be considered for publication in their sister journal for feasibility trials. I am very grateful to have received such a clear, prompt response.
Motivation:
The delay in receiving reviews was quite long, but the editor was very responsive to my queries and explained that it was due to issues with the reviewers that were, in my opinion, beyond their control.
Motivation:
The review took 6 months, and the report was quite generic
Motivation:
The review took more than a year for a paper which was not so long
Motivation:
Referee's report was not shown to the authors
Motivation:
High level journal, but the delays are sometimes unpredictable
Motivation:
Quite rapid, rare for a pure mathematics journal
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
I was very disappointed that a little over 2 months after submitting my paper, I heard that it had not been sent out for review because of the standard reasons "including the overall fit of the paper for AIDS and Behavior, journal priorities, number of papers awaiting assignment to an issue, as well the methods and results of the study." Normally, I would expect to hear this type of feedback within a week, so that I may submit elsewhere in an efficient manner. This was very disheartening. If a journal sits on a paper for so long, I would at least expect some reviews in return.
Motivation:
Fast manuscript handling, with helpfull and fast communication in the submission stage about submission requirement details. Referee reports with useful comments. Overall, an excellent process.
Motivation:
The editor at this journal is a disgrace to journal editors. His tenure should be terminated forthwith. The editor did not respond to any form of contact (email, telephone calls, etc.) as we tried to find out what had happened to our manuscript after well over a year of waiting for a response.
Motivation:
Fast and professional work of editorial board. Accurate and helpful reviews.
Motivation:
A very quick review and publishing process. An unedited article version was available online 9 days after acceptance, final version 2 weeks later.
20.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The journal was extremely slow to assign peer reviewers, admitting after three months (and several enquiries from us) that they had not yet sent the manuscript out for review. Peer review comments were ultimately received from three peer reviewers, among whom there was considerable disagreement. The reviewers who criticised the manuscript were fair in their criticism and we felt that their feedback would have been relatively easy to integrate into the manuscript. However, after nearly five months, the editor recommended outright rejection, pushing our publication timelines back significantly (p<0.05).