Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed carefully by the reviewer. The reviewer's comments were very helpful.
The rejection was made by the associate editor who didn't give insightful or constructive comments. The comments were humiliating and showed no experience in the field.
The rejection was made by the associate editor who didn't give insightful or constructive comments. The comments were humiliating and showed no experience in the field.
Motivation:
Ver fast review, multiple reviewers (>2), easy system to handle the comments. Comments were helpful to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Very fast and thorough review, excellent comments to improve the manuscript. Reviewers were well known experts in the field.
Motivation:
The reviewers' reports were very helpful and improved the quality of my paper. But after two rounds of blind reviews (by 3 reviewers), the editor said they were not happy with the quality of the reviewers so they started reviewing my manuscript on their own again and again until I decided to withdraw as it was the opposite of the concept and philosophy of "blind peer review".
Motivation:
The paper was desk-rejected very quickly (within one day). The editor stated that there is no contribution and that it is out of scope (not true as related papers are published all the time in the journal). Afterward, the paper was easily accepted in another top journal, so its quality and contribution were not an issue. Gatekeeping at its finest.
Motivation:
Very fast decision. Although, the arguments given were rather weird as this was not the scope of the paper. Lack of novelty is also very strange as this was the first study ever for the specific topic.
Motivation:
It was disappointing that the editor rejected the applied work based on something directly addressed in the associated (published) methods paper.
I suppose this illustrates that not all editors of this journal keep abridged of the state of the literature, and take shortcuts to reduce their workload.
I suppose this illustrates that not all editors of this journal keep abridged of the state of the literature, and take shortcuts to reduce their workload.
Motivation:
Our manuscript went through two rounds of peer review. After the second round, both anonymous reviewers suggested accepting the paper for publication. The editor, however, requested us to revise and resubmit for a 3rd round of peer review. We followed the instructions and resubmitted the paper after addressing his comments. After that, the editor went radio silent. He didn't bother to send the revised manuscript to external reviewers or respond to any of our emails. He did not even make an editorial decision. After months of waiting and not receiving a response, we ended up withdrawing the paper. Completely waste of time for the authors and reviewers. This is the most unprofessional and unethical behavior I've seen from any editorial team.
Motivation:
Refereeing process was fast, but referee's report was awful. Five lines of report showing that the referee has neither read nor understood the paper at all. S/he said we were working on metric measure spaces, while literally in the abstract it was written "throughout the paper the measure space will never be asked to be metric".
Motivation:
only received report C, referee did not understand main point of the paper, no reason given for rejection by editorial board, but at least took less than 5 months
Motivation:
The review process took an obscenely long time and resulted in rejection. It was not only a matter of difficulties in finding reviewers but the paper sat with the editor and administrators for 2-3 months at different points in the process. Many comments received may be helpful in improving the text for re-submission elsewhere. Others were outright rude or seemed to overlook the fact that the excessively long review process contributed to making our study outdated.
Motivation:
My email was purposely altered by journal editorial board staff, so that I could not log in to my Science advances account. No notice of that action was given. Apart from that review was unprofessional.
Motivation:
Overall we had a good experience with this journal altough the editors were a bit slow.
Motivation:
The status of the manuscript was "Manuscript under consideration" since the second day. After one month, we contacted the journal and asked for an update. They told us that the editor had not started looking at the paper. After 7 weeks, the status was still the same.
I think that NHB is a fantastic journal. It is a bit unfortunate, however, that takes is that long to decide if a paper fits or not.
I think that NHB is a fantastic journal. It is a bit unfortunate, however, that takes is that long to decide if a paper fits or not.
Motivation:
CrossRef check was applied to the whole manuscript (most probably including references) by journal staff and asked to revise the text after rejecting the paper three times which is quite strange and a waste of time (wasted more than two months). Software-generated similarity check report was requested multiple times by email but received no response. Poor handling and non-responsive Journal staff should be considered before submitting the paper to this journal.
Motivation:
Only 1 reviewer was found after 3 months which is a bit strange. The field of the research is rather broad so not sure why they were only able to find 1 reviewer. Paper was submitted to another journal and was published, with several reviewers (more than 2).
Motivation:
I really do not think that the editor (or the editorial board member) is doing his/her job. During the first round of the review, we got 2 excellent reviews and 1 highly critical review. The reviewer was definitely not qualified, she would not even know what a continuous variable is and she recommended papers which were not related to our paper at all. We cautioned the editor to read our responses to this reviewer carefully in a confidential note to the editor when we submitted the revised manuscript back to the journal. In the second round, we received 5 reviews (3 same from round 1 and 2 new reviewers). 2 of the initial reviewers liked the revisions (one of them had a not slight concern which was not scientific at all). The reviewer who created issues during the first round still objected the paper (she is highly unqualified). One of the two new reviewers liked the paper and the second one recommended a slight statistical change.
Summary:
I would never ever submit to this journal again... 5 reviews is a waste, especially given how hard it is to get reviewers nowadays and how unreliable reviews tend to be. Most of the five reviewers like the paper, and yet it’s still a rejection. The current world is one where you have to please five people to get an article accepted, meaning that controversial research has zero shot.
Summary:
I would never ever submit to this journal again... 5 reviews is a waste, especially given how hard it is to get reviewers nowadays and how unreliable reviews tend to be. Most of the five reviewers like the paper, and yet it’s still a rejection. The current world is one where you have to please five people to get an article accepted, meaning that controversial research has zero shot.
Motivation:
Terrible response times and little/no communication from editors. After 3 months post-submission with no status update I messaged the editors but only received an automated reply back that they can't respond to every query. I got the first response from reviewers only after 30 weeks. After revisions, the second response came after 20 weeks. After more revisions, third response came after 8 weeks (was finally accepted). Quality of reviews and fairness of editor(s) was good, but only consider this journal if you are prepared to wait 17 months for your paper to get published.
Motivation:
I regret to inform you that this topic is not of direct interest to CMP's intended audience. Mathematical physics is a vast field, and while we have tried to extend our coverage as much as possible, our scope is limited by the editorial board member's particular domains of interest. CMP has a substantial backlog of accepted papers. We are therefore forced to impose very strict standards. In particular, we need to select papers that are more in line with the core areas that are considered to be within the traditional scope of CMP. In an effort to reduce the backlog, we unfortunately cannot accept all of the good works that are submitted.
Motivation:
TP is a reasonably prestigious journal, but they took 4 months finding reviewers. By the time the paper is actually 'in press', it would have been > 7 months since submission. The reviewers' comments were OK, but didn't really add to the quality of the final product. Overall, given all of this and the ridiculous open access fees charged by Nature-springer for this journal (£3000), My lab won't be submitting here again. I can't justify the cost to the funders and the prestige of the journal isn't worth the long delays. I think Journal of Neuroscience (for an apprioriately neuroscience-focused psychiatry paper) or J Affective Disorders or Int J Neuropsychopharmacol are better options.
Motivation:
It took 35 days for our manuscript to be seen by an Editor only to decide upon a desk reject.
Motivation:
Apparently they reject 35% of manuscripts after internal review (too many submissions, reviewer fatigue), and ours was one of them. Feedback from editor was very precise and competent, but also just 4 sentences.
Motivation:
This feels like a template rejection letter without even properly reading the MS. How does one infer that? Here is how. It has been 2.4 weeks since we submitted the MS and like all other reviews, we get the same reply. At this point, the editorial reviews are just pointing towards its new open-access sub-journals, which in this case is the one mentioned above, in their reply. ALso kindly see the details of the editor who replies. Pretty sure they are not working on any similar field.
Motivation:
Comments from reviewers concerned the global understanding and quality of English of the article, extending the literature references with pertinent suggestions.
Motivation:
the decision letter mentioned their "goals in publishing high impact results".
Motivation:
I feel the decision was subjective
Motivation:
The first decision time was relatively long. However the journal is still good.
Motivation:
After the first review, one of the reviewer asked for minor revision, but make requests impossible to fulfill.
More than two month were needed to have a decision on the revised version.
More than two month were needed to have a decision on the revised version.
Motivation:
Manuscript was desk-rejected without any further comment, which is unfortunate because it would have been good to at least know whether the problem was the fit, the breadth of the paper, or something else. After all (also taking experiences with other submissions), it appears to be a lottery on whether a paper gets a chance at the journal.
Motivation:
The waiting time for the reviews was relatively long (4 months). While we received helpful feedback from the reviewers and most of their comments were addressable, the editor decided to reject our ms. The main justification for this decision was too high N of submissions per year (over 600) to this journal.
In this spirit, to help the editor to limit the N of submissions, my suggestion would be to consider another journal for your ms. Another reason for NOT submitting to the CBSN is a submission fee of $50! A quick calculation: 600 x $50 = $30k annual income for the journal based on such submission fee (sic!)
In this spirit, to help the editor to limit the N of submissions, my suggestion would be to consider another journal for your ms. Another reason for NOT submitting to the CBSN is a submission fee of $50! A quick calculation: 600 x $50 = $30k annual income for the journal based on such submission fee (sic!)
Motivation:
Half a year after the initial submission, the editor notified me that he had decided to reject the paper based on the reviewers' comments. However, the editor did not provide me with any insight into the reviewers' comments, despite my request that they be forwarded to me.
In this way, it appears that the editorial board of Scientia Iranica Journal is only using the reviewers' efforts to support the journal's decision-making process rather than supporting the scientific community growth and exchange of knowledge (that reviewer comments should contribute to in the first place).
As a result of this unusual procedure, I will no longer be submitting or possibly writing reviews for this journal.
In this way, it appears that the editorial board of Scientia Iranica Journal is only using the reviewers' efforts to support the journal's decision-making process rather than supporting the scientific community growth and exchange of knowledge (that reviewer comments should contribute to in the first place).
As a result of this unusual procedure, I will no longer be submitting or possibly writing reviews for this journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected without being sent out, but the editorial process is quick.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, negative ratings are not possible here. But I feel this Journal deserves a minus one. The quality of peer reviews was by far the worst I have ever experienced in my career (I started writing journal papers in 2010 and I am writing this in 2022).
First, the reviewers reports were not helpful at all. They did not contain any criticism on either methodological aspects of the work nor on the reported results. The only message conveyed to us was that the text was difficult to understand as it was too scientific. We submitted the manuscript 'as is' to a more appropriate journal on the same day we got the decision letter.
About the reviewers.
Reviewer #1 complained on how different the manuscript was from the way they usually write papers. It contained citations "in a lump form". The sentences were not phrased to his liking. There was no overview of the field in general (why should there be one? this was not a review paper). I find it hilarious that they decided to focus on language since clearly it was not a native speaker. The edits they suggested were bogus. Further, Reviewer #1 admitted they were not able to follow the derivation of the main theoretical arguments. Then, they suggested that the difference in the samples considered in this work was not 'sufficiently clear'. Although the paper focused on a modification of a data treatment procedure for MEASUREMENTS, the Reviewer thought it would not be suitable for the Journal because it was too 'theoretical'. Well, it just happens that these measurements involve theory -- we are not able to change that, sorry! And these complains appeared even though three sets of experimental samples were measured and analysed with the said model, plus the experiment was explained in sufficient detail.
Then, Reviewer #2 wrote his witty comments, which misinterpreted the whole text and made us look like idiots who are not capable of understanding simple things. We believe that Reviewer #2 misinformed the Editor (that was likely a deliberate move to prevent our publication), making him believe that a Figure contained poor match between the cross-verified methods, although any person with a clear vision would be able to see the match was excellent. Based on that conclusion, Reviewer #2 proceeded to say our models were not sound as they were numerical and depended on grid partitioning, and that we had taken arbitrary parameters to test them.
The decision was communicated by an 'Editor' who did not have an academic degree, said to be acting 'on behalf' of the Editor-in-Chief.
I strongly advise anyone reading this AGAINST sending to this Journal. It is not even in Q1 and the Editors and the Reviewers are unprofessional -- so don't even bother.
First, the reviewers reports were not helpful at all. They did not contain any criticism on either methodological aspects of the work nor on the reported results. The only message conveyed to us was that the text was difficult to understand as it was too scientific. We submitted the manuscript 'as is' to a more appropriate journal on the same day we got the decision letter.
About the reviewers.
Reviewer #1 complained on how different the manuscript was from the way they usually write papers. It contained citations "in a lump form". The sentences were not phrased to his liking. There was no overview of the field in general (why should there be one? this was not a review paper). I find it hilarious that they decided to focus on language since clearly it was not a native speaker. The edits they suggested were bogus. Further, Reviewer #1 admitted they were not able to follow the derivation of the main theoretical arguments. Then, they suggested that the difference in the samples considered in this work was not 'sufficiently clear'. Although the paper focused on a modification of a data treatment procedure for MEASUREMENTS, the Reviewer thought it would not be suitable for the Journal because it was too 'theoretical'. Well, it just happens that these measurements involve theory -- we are not able to change that, sorry! And these complains appeared even though three sets of experimental samples were measured and analysed with the said model, plus the experiment was explained in sufficient detail.
Then, Reviewer #2 wrote his witty comments, which misinterpreted the whole text and made us look like idiots who are not capable of understanding simple things. We believe that Reviewer #2 misinformed the Editor (that was likely a deliberate move to prevent our publication), making him believe that a Figure contained poor match between the cross-verified methods, although any person with a clear vision would be able to see the match was excellent. Based on that conclusion, Reviewer #2 proceeded to say our models were not sound as they were numerical and depended on grid partitioning, and that we had taken arbitrary parameters to test them.
The decision was communicated by an 'Editor' who did not have an academic degree, said to be acting 'on behalf' of the Editor-in-Chief.
I strongly advise anyone reading this AGAINST sending to this Journal. It is not even in Q1 and the Editors and the Reviewers are unprofessional -- so don't even bother.
Motivation:
Took a long time. The first round of review was helpful, I struggled to understand what the editors were looking for in the second two rounds (they criticised some literature search terms, which was fair but not something that I could do anything about at that stage). They eventually accepted it.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to lack of novelty. After a long period under review, the corrisponding author decided to e-mail the editor for news about the manuscript state, and recevied no answer. They oly received answer after directly contacting Elsevier.