Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I've had faster desk rejections.
Motivation:
A desk reject, but with three lines of thoughtful feedback from the editor and a recommendation for a different journal.
Motivation:
Rapid desk-reject for a topic considered out-of-scope. I appreciate the rapid response.
Motivation:
Quick rejection with a generic reason that the editor claimed cannot be fixed but did not provide much specifics.
Motivation:
The justifications for rejection are poor. One of the comments was: "The sentence should be changed to: "Quantifying pain pressure threshold provides the clinician…" that is not a problem that justifies the rejection of a paper.
Motivation:
The process was extremely slow, especially after I received the conditional acceptance. It took 10 months (!) from conditional acceptance to online publication. I would definitely not recommend any junior scholar to publish with JPR at the moment. In total, it took 16 months from the first submission to publication. Any inquiries with the editorial team were ignored by the administrative staff, no replies to emails at all.
Motivation:
I deeply suspect the editor-in-chief has a group of deeply connected people holding academic positions in India, and screens with bias.
Motivation:
It is the worst experience we have recently had with one of our submissions, even though our manuscript has been finally accepted for publication. To mention just a few problems: incompetent handling editor that was later replaced, unresponsive journal staff, delayed review, delayed proofs, delayed online publication… I personally do not think I would ever submit another manuscript to Frontiers in Microbiology or recommend this journal to any of my colleagues.
Motivation:
I waited for more than three months and still indicate editor invited. Horrible experience. Do not recommend for any one to consider this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were helpful to improve my manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was very good with insightful comments, however also very slow.
One of the reviewers insisted twice to citie a paper (probably his paper) that we had to reject twice and argue about this paper not being relevant to our study.
One of the reviewers insisted twice to citie a paper (probably his paper) that we had to reject twice and argue about this paper not being relevant to our study.
Motivation:
In terms of time, Tourism Review and the Editor conduct reviews in a timely manner. However, the quality of the reviews were not good, suggesting a lack of knowledge in the topic.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were positive about our manuscript and one was lukewarm. Suggestions for improvement were extensive but straightforward. After 15 weeks of non-stop work (days, nights, weekends, holidays), we submitted a revision, which was accepted.
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to reviewers, who did not seem to assess the manuscript in depth. There were factual mistakes in one review and the other review completely ignored large chunks of the manuscript. I was advised by colleagues against submitting to this journal and the prediction was the rejection will cause the editor to suggest a lower journals, which is exactly what happened. Not sure I want to try this venue again.
Motivation:
Editors and reviewers are committed to delivering to the readership good-quality papers.
Motivation:
Due to the format of the journal, a lot of the methodological details had to be put in the Supplementary Materials. Yet my impression was that the journal did not make the SM easily accessible for the reviewers. Two of the three reviewers mentioned that it took them some searching to find the SM, which contributed to some of their confusions in reading the manuscript. Other than that the review process was fast and the feedback were mostly very helpful.
Motivation:
The process of publishing the article went well and quickly, and I think the comments of the reviewers for the revision were correct and fair.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. Reviewers asked important questions about the paper that contributed significantly to improving the final version. Accepted after the first revision.
Motivation:
The submitted manuscript was reviewed by two experts, and the comments from two reviewers significantly improved the quality of our paper.
Motivation:
The submission and review process were very smooth. Unfortunately, due to problems at the production department of the publisher, there was some delay to publish the paper on OnlineFirst.
Motivation:
This was a fairly standard special-issue handling. The review reports were received a month late relative to the original schedule, but that is not excessive. The reviewers gave reasons for their rejections. Not what we wanted, but it is hard to make sense of "not sufficiently original". I accept that that is the subjective aspect of peer review.
Motivation:
The journal needs to work in improve the duration until the final decision
Motivation:
I received a very positive decision letter, which came after a fair time from the submission.