Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My only complaint is the time taken rather than the quality of the reviews
Motivation:
My manuscript was revised thoroughly. I got feedback from both reviewers. In my opinion, it took quiet a long time before I got news.
Motivation:
After waiting for almost six weeks, I got a response from the editor that the paper had been rejected before external review, because the paper would be more appropriate for a public health journal. This reason still doesn't make much sense to me because I had always thought that public health was pone of the areas covered by Social Science and Medicine.
Motivation:
I don't think the editor understood the comments of the reviewers. Either way, he did not give a good reason to reject the piece
Motivation:
Greater editors (they also give very good and constructive comments) and generally great reviewers.
Motivation:
It was clear that the editor did not read the reviews thoroughly. The reviews actually contained comments that were totally wrong. The editor did not even notice did, even though the subject of the paper (and thus the reviews) were very much situated in her research field.
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were actually great (very appropriatly selected by the editor). They helped to improve the paper considerably. Also both editors give a lot of suggestions and comments in each round. Only drawback is the long period.
Motivation:
It appears that the editor rejected the paper based on the reference list and and not on the journal's scope.
"There was concern that the topic area of your paper did not make Part B an obvious forum for your work (this is reflected to some extent by the fact that your manuscript does not refer to any Part B papers). This is not a criticism of your paper; it simply suggests that other journals are more appropriate."
"There was concern that the topic area of your paper did not make Part B an obvious forum for your work (this is reflected to some extent by the fact that your manuscript does not refer to any Part B papers). This is not a criticism of your paper; it simply suggests that other journals are more appropriate."
Motivation:
It took very long for the first review. Only after contacting the area editor several times (without any response) a decision was made. The reviewers did not comment much on the main contribution of the paper.
Motivation:
The Lancet claims that it will usually decide whether to send out for review within 2 weeks. This claim of a quick initial decision encourages many authors (including myself) to submit articles to the Lancet, despite its very low acceptance rate. While a rejection was not a huge surprise, I was disappointed with the 6 weeks it took them to reject without review.
Motivation:
A bit slow. No reason given for rejection. Reviews were rather positive so not obvious why decision was made to reject. Thorough reviews, polite and rather constructive.
Motivation:
It took a long time to obtain the review, but it was very thorough and useful. After submitting the changes, the editor requested some minor stylistic changes which again improved the manuscript. Overall, the communication with the journal has been effective.
Motivation:
Relatively fast for a linguistics journal and good, thorough reviews.
Motivation:
Reasonably fast, but a bit disappointing that they had us go through the Initial Quality Check for figures using this dreaded Editorial Manager system three times (a big time investment) — before telling us, two weeks later, that they had barely looked at the manuscript and rejected it anyway for "not having the broad appeal needed for PNAS".
Motivation:
According to the editor, the reason the first round of reviewing took more than PLOS ONE's promised 'month on average' was that it was the summer season. Response after the first inquiry was very fast, and a final decision was made only a few days after resubmission.
Motivation:
The editor's decision was made very quickly, within a week. I received a couple of constructive points for improvement.
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the feedback I received from the editor was very constructive, elaborate, and helpful for further developing the paper.
Motivation:
One reviewer made multiple unprofessional comments that were many times scientifically incorrect and advised to reject. The second reviewer described the paper as "well-written" and asked for minor revisions. The third reviewer also requested only specific revisions. The editors comments referred only to the first reviewers "strongly suggested rejection" opinion and rejected the manuscript based on this with no option of providing a rebuttal against the incorrect claims and statements or opportunity to revise.
Motivation:
There was no option to select "no response received" for this survey. After waiting almost an entire year and constantly contacting the journal for a status update they were unable to inform me of the reason for the delay. Eventually I withdrew my submission and submitted elsewhere as I could not afford to wait even longer with no response at all. It took another month or more just to get confirmation of the withdraw and no reason or apology was given.
Motivation:
My manuscript was accepted in the middle of submission process then suddenly I received further request of major changes. I didn't revise it but I withdrew the paper and submitted it to a higher impact journal in its original state prior to first admission and was accepted in 5 weeks with minor changes requested and done. The most annoying experience with OMJ is that the reviewers sent comments that were not scientifically sound and insisted to be done.
Motivation:
The editor was very professional
Motivation:
The editor was polite and efficient. The quality of the reviews was very good and made me realize that my paper was not.
Motivation:
Overall experience with the review process was very positive. Not only the comments from the Referees but also from the Editorial Staff were very constructive and indeed helped us to improve our manuscript. The relatively long time for the first round of revision might be explained by the festivities over Christmas and New Year. The only point that I suggested the Journal to improve was the system for submission of the files of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewer's reports were quite positive, they suggested only a few minor changes. However, the final decision was still rejection without giving any explanation. I think it is not quite fair after 4,5 months of waiting.
Motivation:
The review process was very surprising for my coauthorand I because we wrote the article following the structure of the article in the journal and we thought that our work couldfit with the journal. We asked to the journal a more precise explanation respect the evaluation done respect our work but they answer that it was not possible because they receive "hundreds of submissions" and their policy is to first screen articles as to fit in terms of our aims and objectives before going to the next step of developmental reviews. Our article not reached this second step to give us more feedback.
Motivation:
My coauthor and I had a very great experience with Business Horizons.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
We received a prompt reply and clear suggestions to improve our work.
We accepted the majority of the suggestions and explained why we refused some of them. The answer from the editor was very kind, quick and clear.
Motivation:
The reviewers were critical, and their comments, criticism, and suggestions actually helped improve the manuscript a lot. The editor was very helpful too. So we thanked them in our acknowledgement section.
Motivation:
review process takes too much time
Motivation:
The paper went through three rounds of review by 2 clueless reviewers, one of whom was probably the editor. One reviewer went completely wild in the first round about how invalid one of our methods was (and obviously didn't know what it was); after we defended it the same reviewer acted like an expert in that method and accused us of not applying it carefully (my co-authors are world experts in the method!). The second reviewer (who was probably the editor) didn't read past the introduction. After two rounds of review, the second reviewer finally read the paper and raised totally off-the-wall objections. The editor finally accepted the paper conditional on us making changes that would produce an invalid analysis, so we withdrew it instead.
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed by two knowledgeable reviewers who read the paper carefully and had good suggestions for improvement.
Motivation:
The comments were fair and improved the quality of my paper. I sent my manuscript July 2nd and got the response on November 2nd and for the second round sent Dec. 11th and got the response on Feb 11th. It seems the journal follows the deadlines strictly (4 months for the first round and two months for the second round). The process was really smooth although the comments were challenging.