Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewers have carefully read the paper and really improved it.
The reviewing process was quick.
The reviewing process was quick.
Motivation:
Very prolonged wait for response (and even then I had to chase them up) and 1 (of 3) reviews was bizarre - exceptionally long, asserting editorial 'rules' not stated anywhere in the author guidance, describing rather commonplace assertions as "offensive" and using caps lock to emphasise where displeased. I felt like I had been trolled, and that the editor should have made some comment on this unusual mode of reviewing (or even simply excluded it and made the decision on the other 2 reviews). The other reviews were measured and helpful. I won't consider publishing here again.
Motivation:
I was told by an editor that SSM has a very high rate of desk rejects (and I have been on the harsh end of this in the past), but as our piece was sent out I was very impressed by the efficiency of the process. Reviews were helpful and appropriate (although almost inevitably after 7 reviews some were starting to contradict each other). The paper was improved by the process and I will gladly publish with them again.
Motivation:
STHV editorial team was very supportive throughout the process and we fell that the paper has improved substantially thanks to the review process. Even though the paper has taken a bit long from submission to acceptance, it seems that this delay has been due mainly to the reviewers rather than the editorial team.
Motivation:
Editors message - "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that the Reviewer #1 is advising against publication of your work, suggesting that this paper might be better suited for a control journal. Therefore I must reject it."
With decision based on the reviewer 1 who also writes "Overall, the authors present an interesting approach." and reviewer 2 who writes "This paper is an important contribution to this area of research." Obviously the Editor generates decision on the 1st reviewer whose claims are not supported since similar works have been published in Journal of Crystal Growth. Not only that Editor does not give any chance to authors to refute reviewer's claims.
With decision based on the reviewer 1 who also writes "Overall, the authors present an interesting approach." and reviewer 2 who writes "This paper is an important contribution to this area of research." Obviously the Editor generates decision on the 1st reviewer whose claims are not supported since similar works have been published in Journal of Crystal Growth. Not only that Editor does not give any chance to authors to refute reviewer's claims.
Motivation:
It took more than 3 months to get the feedback on the article. I appreciate useful comments, It allowed me to submit elsewhere the corrected version.
Motivation:
The overall peer-review time was reasonable.The comments of the reviewers were clear. They helped to improve the paper considerably.
Motivation:
It took 10 months after a number of solicitations to the associate editor (who claimed difficulties in finding reviewers). This could have been considered in the final decision since 10 months is not a short review time and reviews contained addressable comments in the end.
Motivation:
Fair and well conducted process. Constructive comments by reviewers. Some reviewers claim were not well supported.
Motivation:
The editor did not address plain contradictions in the statements of Reviewers, including the fact that one of the Reviewer took claims from the manuscript and cited them with opposite meaning in its own review (literally adding "not" in sentences). While it is acknoledgeable that review process may be discretionary on aspect such as general quality of paper, novelty, etc. plain contradictions should not be allowed to get through expecially when pointed out as the authors did. Unfortunately the only action proposed by EiC (when asked about the matter) was to undergo again a complete review cycle starting as if it was a new submission. The authors were skeptical this was a fair way to address the situation and did not proceed.
Motivation:
I have no specific complaints concerning the peer review process. The comments were clear and the overall peer-review time was reasonable.
Motivation:
In the final decision, the editor referred only to the additional (negative) review, and not at all to the reviews from the first round or our changes to the manuscript.
Motivation:
One reviewer recommended acceptance, the other one was lukewarm but seems to have reviewed the paper in a real hurry.
Motivation:
I got several courtesy mails because the review process took so long.
Motivation:
It took more than 3 months to get this feedback on the article : "Thank you for submitting your manuscript. All new submissions are given a
preliminary review by the editors to evaluate whether the subject matter and
general content are appropriate for this journal.
Unfortunately, the editors were of the opinion that the topic covered in
your manuscript is outside the scope of this journal and are better suited
for a journal that publishes papers in that area."
Usually I get this kind of feedback one ore two days after having submitted the article. I can't imagine why it took so long with this journal. I hope other scholars won't waste their time with this journal.
preliminary review by the editors to evaluate whether the subject matter and
general content are appropriate for this journal.
Unfortunately, the editors were of the opinion that the topic covered in
your manuscript is outside the scope of this journal and are better suited
for a journal that publishes papers in that area."
Usually I get this kind of feedback one ore two days after having submitted the article. I can't imagine why it took so long with this journal. I hope other scholars won't waste their time with this journal.
Motivation:
My ms presents a view against a stronly held concnesus. The way I wrote it was provocative, and maybe offensive to many. So a rejection was expected. However, the reviewer recommended rejection by twisting the views of both what I criticize, and mine. I thought it was unfair and wrote a rebuttal to the editor. Never hear back from the editor about my rebuttal!
Motivation:
I appreciate the prompt read and rejection of the paper for not being a good fit with the journal. It allows me to submit elsewhere while the topic is current.
Motivation:
The review took over 10 months, and several unreturned emails checking on the status of the review. After this wait, one review was one paragraph long and simply stated the abstract should be "jazzed up". The other review was two paragraphs without much substance. For a top journal, I was disappointed in the length of review, quality of review and lack of communication.
Motivation:
The editor is very involved in the review process. This was my second experience with EUP and although the review process is tough, it is also overall rather fair and the editor seems to be able to get reviewers who are both fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The process was overall ok. My main issue is that we submitted the paper to a special issue, but it was considered "off topic" and then sent to the regular track. It took 3 months to receive the reply, which is more or less the average in my field.
Motivation:
No one likes rejection, but at least it was handled quickly
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.