Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
Motivation:
A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.
Motivation:
Helpful comments from editor
Motivation:
Submission involved mailing paper version to Italy.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Motivation:
The review was inconsistent in its outlook and poorly expressed. It should have been sent to a second reviewer.
Motivation:
While the editors originally promised feedback within a month and a half, and they only got back to me after three months, their message showed that the article went through a proper internal review process and the reasons for rejections were fair and absolutely acceptable.
Motivation:
It should not take 4 months to get a decision.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected within three days, we initially submitted a presubmission inquiry on March 13 but never received a response.
Motivation:
The reviews we received were quite positive and constructive, but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.
Motivation:
Although the final submission was May 19, I actually submitted it on May 5, after which the editors asked me to provide additional information which created further delays. In my opinion, if they were going to reject the paper they could have done so without asking for the additional information and causing this delay.
Motivation:
Editorial decision took 4 weeks, than rejected without review. An inquiry after three weeks if a review process had been initiated was not answered. Standard rejection letter with reference to "immediate" (!!!) editorial decision.
Motivation:
The submission process was organized, automated, transparent and efficient.
Motivation:
My paper was accepted within one month. This is probably because it was not sent to external referees. At least I did not receive any referee reports.
Motivation:
My paper was rejected by an associate editor without sending it to external reviewers. Although I believe my paper to be of similar quality as other papers that do get published in the journal, I was happy that it took only about a week to receive the rejection message. So little time was lost.
Motivation:
Rejection within 1hour.
Motivation:
I have never experienced similar in my 20-years research, incl about 100 paper submissions.
One month after the rejection we finally got an explanation from the editor:
"It should be an initial reject as it is a narrow study limited to Norwegian shelf and does not add value to the readers."
In fact, the paper does not deal with the Norwegian shelf at all - it deals with the rig market in Gulf of Mexico...
One month after the rejection we finally got an explanation from the editor:
"It should be an initial reject as it is a narrow study limited to Norwegian shelf and does not add value to the readers."
In fact, the paper does not deal with the Norwegian shelf at all - it deals with the rig market in Gulf of Mexico...
Motivation:
The process started very well and quick. However, after the first round the remaining referee came up with questionable accusations of scientific dishonesty. I feel that the editor could have cut the process short after the first round of revisions. That would have saved 3 months of nonsense.
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.