Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
A quick and honest response, although not what we were expecting. The editor made suggestions for alternative journals that he felt the paper would be better suited to. The paper has been resubmitted elsewhere now.
Motivation:
4 months after submission, a first request from author's side was answered with "accepted with minor revision" by a junior editor. One review was available. Some 2 months later the manuscript was rejected with "revise before review" by a chief editor. No reason was provided for this calamity.
Motivation:
The summary of reasons for rejection was most helpful, illuminating both the strengths of the piece, the reason for rejection (the topic was too specific for the journal) and suggested revisions prior to submission elsewhere. This is valuable and appreciated.
Motivation:
The principal suggestion for improvement is to provide a summary of reasons for rejection instead of a boilerplate letter that gives the author guidance on whether the manuscript was unsuitable for reasons of topic (originality, topicality, subject-specificity), quality (research, analysis, writing) and/or other reasons. This need not be lengthy (one paragraph can suffice) but nevertheless is far more useful than a standard rejection letter that tells the author nothing, even on a general level.
Motivation:
This was a very long review, unconventional as it seemed the paper was reviewed by one reviewer only (a member of the editorial board I assume), and the feedback given by the editor was extremely short, unhelpful, and worryingly off topic. I will not submit a paper there again.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The journal's entire turnaround was overly long, holding up my paper yet providing no help. The editor responded very slowly with my queries. Reviewers appear to change in different rounds, so all my revision based on previous reviewers' comments was in vain.
Motivation:
Aside from the initial review process taking 5 months for a journal who's motto is "accelerating peer reviewed research" I have several reservations about the appropriateness of both the handling editor and reviewers for my manuscripts. Both reviewers openly admitted a lack of basic knowledge of the statistical approaches used in the manuscript, yet critiqued the research for statistical reasons. One of the reasons for rejection given was based on an unsubstantiated opinion of one of the reviewers. The journal indicates that the appeal process takes longer than the initial review process so I am moving on. I will likely never review for this journal again, and will be pretty desperate before sending them another manuscript.
Motivation:
This manuscript was a software article. Despite the following issue the reviewing process was fast and simple.
The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.
Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!
The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.
Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!
Motivation:
Reasonable review process. Editors acted upon advise by reviewers who had clear opinions about the manuscript and whose criticism was fair given the mismatch between the aims and scope of the journal, and the character of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviews were useful, and the communication with the journal editor/ team was easy and professional.
Motivation:
The journal had bad luck in selecting a reviewer that gave some suggestions in the first round, and then, when these had been addressed in a revision, focused on different things in the second round and requested a whole other range of changes. A second reviewer right from the start might have balanced this and made the assessment fair and more complete in the first place. When after a third submission the journal finally brought another reviewer onboard (on my, the authors' request) this new reviewer had suggestions that in many ways would take the manuscript back to its original (first submission) form. Several of the changes and additions done in the previous two revisions (on request by reviewer 1) were now retracted/changed back again, to satisfy the second reviewer. Now in my view, this significantly improved the manuscript, and therefore it was worth it. To the credit of the journal editor shall be said that he/she recognized this and "sided" with the second reviewer (and me, the author) after the final submission, and accepted the manuscript swiftly.
Motivation:
Swift review process. Both editor and reviewers focused on improving the manuscript. Generally positive experience.