Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Extremely detailed and mostly helpful review reports. The second review round took a bit longer than it really needed to but the editor's decision came very quickly after that which helped keep things moving.
Motivation:
Desk rejects are always painful, but this one was reasonably fast and we had a useful pointer from the editor.
Motivation:
This journal's peer review system seems to have been problematic since the current Chief Editor took over.
Motivation:
The level of reviews is approximately equal to the level of the best representatives of regional university bulletins. The requirement to cite your work at the end looks especially charming. We were prepared for the fact that a good journal might have high requirements, so we did not rule out the possibility of a motivated reject. But we certainly could not imagine such a level of reviews. If six months were the price for reasonable comments, this could at least be understood. 2, because the site is convenient and the editor is polite.
Motivation:
The review process took a bit longer than expected, but I noticed that the recruitment of suitable reviewers caused the delay. Once the invitations were accepted, the reviewing time was quite reasonable. The first round of reviews was thorough and accurate, although one reviewer's comments felt uncomfortable. In the second round, this reviewer mentioned that, in hindsight, he realized his comments were a bit harsh. Overall, the reviewing process improved the paper and pointed out subtle issues.
Motivation:
RSC editors have been the best recently in terms of having lowest manuscript handling time
Motivation:
Editor judged manuscript would be better suited for a more specialised or a broad-scope journal with slightly less stringent requirements. Very quick handling means you can submit without losing too much time even in case of desk rejection.
Motivation:
Sadly
Motivation:
During my 40+ years in science, I have authored/coauthored well over 100 papers. This review process has the absolute worst of any that I have experienced. Our paper was sent to reviewers clearly lacking in any knowledge or expertise in the field, who repeatedly asked for picayune changes in formatting that could have easily been handled at the typesetting stage. The editors were no better, merely acting as paper shufflers and not stepping in to stop the insanity. I will never send another paper to PLOS One again, and have actively advised my colleagues and trainees to avoid the journal like the plague.
Motivation:
Quite fast turn around. Editor allowed short extension of revision deadline. Reviewers were knowledgeable within the field.
Motivation:
I was prepared for a very long process from initial submission to final decision, and this proved to be true. However, the editorial side of the manuscript handling process was relatively quick; it was the peer review process that took the most time. Communication with the editor was positive. She kept me up to date as much as possible and was very understanding when I had questions, always responding in a timely and respectful manner. Most of the peer reviews were fair and helpful, and I believe the manuscript improved as a result of the peer review process. Overall, I had a positive experience and would consider submitting future work to this journal.
Motivation:
We got a brief explanation, but other journals are quicker for a desk reject...
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected under pressure from the first reviewer, which seemed very biased against our work and included extremely wrong assertions for the field. The editor did not consider our rebuttal in which we cited solid literature from the best in the field. Later, similar work was published in Science and cited our bioRxiv manuscript.
Motivation:
Review process was extremely smooth and fast. Reviewers comments, although regarding minor revisions, were useful and well argued. The whole process was rather transparent and easy to track in the Taylor and Francis online system. Editors were very responsive and diligent both in finding reviewers and making decision. In my view, this was how academic publishing should be. Very pleasant experience.
Motivation:
It was absolutely shameful how long this entire ordeal took. Even repeated emails to the editorial staff did not seem to expedite the process. The outcome was reviewer comments that did not move beyond general editor-type observations.
Motivation:
They simply stated "I regret to inform you that your manuscript has been denied publication in Alternatives."
They even did not state any information about scope fitness or journal quality issues. This is unfair to other authors.
They even did not state any information about scope fitness or journal quality issues. This is unfair to other authors.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were constructive, and the manuscript improved. Compared to articles from a few years ago, the peer review seems to have become stricter in recent years. However, the formatting editor, whose only role was to check for typos and the like, was absolutely terrible. Not only did she overlook many errors, but she also commented on the content of the paper despite having no scientific understanding of mitochondrial DNA, and many of her comments were completely off the mark. Because she was the first in the review process, we couldn't even raise objections to the reviewers or editors, and had to make revisions based on her unfounded demands. Naturally, these revisions were pointed out as being incorrect during the review and had to be reverted. Upon submitting the revised manuscript, she made the exact same requests again. Even after sending a protest email, she completely ignored it, causing significant delays in the review process. This time, we spent more time dealing with her baseless remarks than on the actual review. Ultimately, things moved smoothly after explaining the situation to the chief editor. It's completely unacceptable for a formatting editor to override comments from reviewers or academic editors. Furthermore, the lack of information sharing between formatting editors, academic editors, and reviewers is also problematic.
Motivation:
The sole reviewer constantly appealed that I was only quoting hearsay in the finding section, although I had quoted statistics and parliamentarian voices for triangulation purposes.
My manuscript involved discussing the situation of three countries, but he was only attacking the finding sub-section related to a specific country. In any other parts of the manuscript, he made no comments. I am wondering if his nationality or background would make him reject any critics or unfavorable comments about the government of the country which my manuscript highlight some critics to them. Potentially, there are in fact conflict of interest.
I complained to the EIC. This is entirely unfair. But they are unwilling to handle the situation.
My manuscript involved discussing the situation of three countries, but he was only attacking the finding sub-section related to a specific country. In any other parts of the manuscript, he made no comments. I am wondering if his nationality or background would make him reject any critics or unfavorable comments about the government of the country which my manuscript highlight some critics to them. Potentially, there are in fact conflict of interest.
I complained to the EIC. This is entirely unfair. But they are unwilling to handle the situation.
Motivation:
Ridiculously long second round of review (esp. for a Review paper). We were close to pulling the paper and submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
This is our first and will be the only submission to the JMIR journal. The editor's conduct appears to be irresponsible and disrespectful. It seems that the handling editor has not completed her Ph.D. training yet. The reason for rejection was simply stated as general points without any comments from the reviewers.
Initially, this journal required us to pay the fast-handling fee, but it took two months without finding any reviewers. Furthermore, the quality of one of the reviewers is remarkably poor, and they do not seem to be a specialist in our field. They provided numerous unhelpful comments and insisted on inserting irrelevant references to their published papers, which goes against academic norms. This is the first time I've encountered such demands from reviewers.
Additionally, this journal is highly likely to request you to transfer your valuable manuscript to journals without Impact Factors (IF). I strongly advise other colleagues not to take the risk of submitting papers to this journal.
Initially, this journal required us to pay the fast-handling fee, but it took two months without finding any reviewers. Furthermore, the quality of one of the reviewers is remarkably poor, and they do not seem to be a specialist in our field. They provided numerous unhelpful comments and insisted on inserting irrelevant references to their published papers, which goes against academic norms. This is the first time I've encountered such demands from reviewers.
Additionally, this journal is highly likely to request you to transfer your valuable manuscript to journals without Impact Factors (IF). I strongly advise other colleagues not to take the risk of submitting papers to this journal.
Motivation:
The decision letter said: "... We currently only accept about 10 % of submissions, and a quick assessment of your submission yielded the expert opinion that it is not suitable for JEMS."
Motivation:
expert opinion was adopted
Motivation:
I would have appreciated some more information about the required quality standards that were not met, so that I could use this detailed feedback to improve the paper.
Motivation:
There was no feedback on which points could be improved.
Motivation:
Hypocrite, waste my time and work
Motivation:
Requested for transfer to communication physics
Motivation:
MTE is currently receiving more submissions than it can publish. Only the papers that have a high potential to attract broad audience and to inspire new studies will be selected for peer review. Unfortunately, this paper has not passed our initial screening. We appreciate your interests in MTE and wish to receive high-quality papers from you in future.
Motivation:
Worst review process I have experienced so far. After an R&R and two rounds of reviews, the editor suddenly decided that the paper allegedly would not be sufficiently anonymized and that the entire process had to be restarted. In the new review process, the paper was rejected although 2 out of 3 reviewers recommended an R&R. In their decision, the editor overlooked Reviewer 3 (who recommended an R&R) and only noticed after I asked about it, but didn't change the decision. In total, I now had 8 reviewers, out of which 7 recommended an R&R (or even acceptance), and on this basis, the paper was rejected after 9 months.
Motivation:
One reviewer report; no other reviewers found by the journal. The one reviewer's comments were five sentences. The first three sentences indicate that the reviewer did not read the manuscript. The methods that are "not described" are in fact described, some of them in the supplementary material. The last sentence then states that this information that was "not described" should be in the main manuscript instead of the supplementary material. Based on this, the editor rejected the paper.