Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
In Ecological Entomology is very poor contact with editors. After waiting 3 months for any message from the editorial board, I send few times mails (or using author centre contact forms) to editorial board with ask for decision. It was necessary to send questions to other members of the board as editor handling my paper did not answer for my messages. I took 7,5 months to get first and the only review of my paper.
Motivation:
The unacceptably long processing times speak for themselves. And even these were reached only by repeated "facilitation" of the editors.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not reviewed, but checked by someone who decided it unsuitable. In spite of this I think that a rapid response in a respectful letter saved me time enough to send the manuscript to another journal the same day. I don't agree with these methods, but at least they did not cause unnecessary delays.
Motivation:
The standard text was specially uninformative and unnecessarily impolite. Just to reject something without actually analysing the text does not need so much time: The e-mail was standard, praising their "rapid" pre-review process. I am an editor myself and consider this behaviour as a lack of respect towards the Authors
Motivation:
Review process generally ok, no specific comments
Motivation:
In spite of the extremely quick and, to us, disappointing decision, the editor had carefully reviewed the paper, provided valuable feedback, motivated the decision convincingly, and suggested alternative outlets.
Motivation:
Two out of three reviews may serve as example of bad will and incompetence. One of the reviewers explicitly acknowledged that a substantial part of the work is beyond his/her scope. Still, his review was considered valid.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process went fine. In the end I only got feedback from one reviewers, the other one did not provide any comments.
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with useful editor response!
Motivation:
One really good (i.e. useful) referee report, one useless report, and a useful letter from the editor.
Motivation:
The review process was reasonably expeditious and reviewers' comments contributed to improving the paper.
Motivation:
After 4 months I wrote to the Editorial Office and they immediately reply that
You paper is still under review, but I will contact the editor in case there is need of reminders.
You paper is still under review, but I will contact the editor in case there is need of reminders.
Motivation:
Very fast and straightforward review/submission process.
Motivation:
The overall review process took a very long time. Sending several reminders after each submission step seemed to speed up the process, no clue what the outcome would be without those reminders. Based on the communication with the associate editor, it was clear that the internal communication in this journal was not working properly. However, for the fact that apparantly they had a hard time to find reviewers, they should get some credit.
Motivation:
We received one set of comments and it was very brief. Not what you would expect after three months of waiting. We requested for the second reviewer's comments. The editorial office would not respond. There was a standard line in the email which read 'given the amount of manuscripts under review we are often only able to offer brief indications as to why, after careful reading, a manuscript has not been selected for publication and these indications have been sent along with this message'.
It was difficult to work out whether the brief indication was full review by a reviewer or not. The office would not respond to queries.
It was difficult to work out whether the brief indication was full review by a reviewer or not. The office would not respond to queries.
Motivation:
It appears to me that the Editor(s) want to promote the new online Journal they suggested in the rejection mail.
Motivation:
They cut-up my figures and re-assembled them to make them fit better the page. Unfortunately they messed up a bit, and it took two weeks at the proofing stage to sort this out (they weren't able to fix it and I produced new figures according to their attempts). Overall a quite ordinary experience.
Motivation:
The review process was exemplary. Quick turn around, excellent comments, an involved, professional and motivated senior editor. Well done!
Motivation:
The rejection was based mainly in one of the reviewers that pointed that it was not significant discovery without any argumentation (in only two sentences).
14.0 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It was a long time between the submission of the revision and the final decision since it was only a minor revision and I suspect it was not sent to the reviewers (do not know for sure). Also the process between the acceptance and the final publication is being quite long.
Motivation:
I felt that the authours could be informed sooner about the editorial decisions and without having to ask for a reply three months after (re)submission. Apart from this, the collaboration with the editors during the review process went fine.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.
Motivation:
After being asked to make revisions, which we did, the manuscript was rejected with no specific reason other than generic reasons like lack of space.
Motivation:
The review process was reasonably quick, the reviewer comments were really helpful, and also after publication the publisher was very quick in correcting the omissions.
Motivation:
Good reports, quick handling.
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast (half a year in total). The reviews were detailed and exhaustive. I do not know, how long the publishing process is.
Motivation:
I can not complain.
Motivation:
The review process took quite a long time.
Motivation:
theoretical problems asserted by Associate Editor was wrong, in fact the manuscript was accepted in other journal
Motivation:
I did not agree with the criticisms of the reviewer. They had a fundamental problem with the methodology, even though it has been well established elsewhere. I believe I had addressed these criticisms, including multiple citations to the approach.