Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We were offered a transfer to another journal. I'm glad that the desk rejection was quick - within 2 days.
There is a reference limit of 30 for (most?) Lancet journals, which I personally find very questionable.
There is a reference limit of 30 for (most?) Lancet journals, which I personally find very questionable.
Motivation:
1) The journal cosiders "Unsolicited Review articles [...] for peer review at the Editor’s discretion".
2) The editor did send our article to peer review --> 3 reports --> 2nd round (2 reports, both recommending "accept")
3) The editor notices that "Although your manuscript is well written, we are not able to consider unsolicited review articles in this journal."
2) The editor did send our article to peer review --> 3 reports --> 2nd round (2 reports, both recommending "accept")
3) The editor notices that "Although your manuscript is well written, we are not able to consider unsolicited review articles in this journal."
Motivation:
It took the journal almost 8 weeks to make the decision of desk rejection.
Motivation:
The desk reject took quite long. They did not offer any internal Lancet transfers, but referred me to several other Elsevier journals. These had impact factors ranging from approx 1.5 - 20, which seems a rather broad range.
Motivation:
One month for a desk rejection ("out of scope") is too long.
Motivation:
More than 5 months for a desk rejection is unacceptable and far blow any standards.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.
Motivation:
After submission, my article was held for nearly three months before even being assigned to an associate editor. It was then held for another two months before being sent out for review. The reviewers' comments, once I finally received them, were reasonably insightful, but the processing time was simply far too long for me to consider submitting to this journal again. I would not recommend submitting to M&S, unless you are prepared for publication to take well over a year.
31.6 weeks
37.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers definitively were experts on the field. Their report were very deep and helpful. My overall experience was extremely positive.
Motivation:
Processing time was alright.
However, the 2 reviews were less the 300 words combined and pointed to shortcomings that were clearly addressed in the manuscript. This suggests that neither of the reviewers properly read the paper. It is questionable for a journal to send out such reviews.
However, the 2 reviews were less the 300 words combined and pointed to shortcomings that were clearly addressed in the manuscript. This suggests that neither of the reviewers properly read the paper. It is questionable for a journal to send out such reviews.
Motivation:
The journal failed to find reviewers over 34 weeks. However, the submission site said that it was undergoing peer review, throughout this time.
Motivation:
Quick desk rejection without any reason stated.
Motivation:
It is truly unacceptable that a decision on the manuscript took over a year. I had already followed up six months into the process, highlighting the delay, yet no meaningful action was taken to address the situation. Such treatment of authors is both disrespectful and highly unprofessional.
If a paper does not correspond to the scope or focus of the journal, it should not take more than a year to communicate this decision to the authors. The extended delay and lack of communication undermine the trust that authors should place in this journal.
If a paper does not correspond to the scope or focus of the journal, it should not take more than a year to communicate this decision to the authors. The extended delay and lack of communication undermine the trust that authors should place in this journal.
Motivation:
We submitted manuscript to this journal, but unfortunately, it was rejected by editor without any explanation of the reasons. On the positive side, the decision was made very quickly, within just 7 days, which we appreciate.
Motivation:
This journal requires strict initial quality check such as ethical approvals and informed consent.
The editorial staff are responsive and email replies are prompt.
The editorial staff are responsive and email replies are prompt.
Motivation:
Desk rejection with generic feedback provided and lis of comments that would usually apply to desk-rejected papers. Absence of speciific or constructive feedback
Authors are reminded, as part of the feedback on the manuscript I presume, that "Tourism Review is one of the leading tourism journals"
Authors are reminded, as part of the feedback on the manuscript I presume, that "Tourism Review is one of the leading tourism journals"
Motivation:
I found the process of publishing my paper to be both enriching and professionally rewarding. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, providing valuable feedback that strengthened my work. The editorial team was responsive and supportive, ensuring a smooth journey from submission to publication. Overall, I appreciated the opportunity to contribute to our field and connect with fellow researchers through this platform.
Motivation:
The editorial board has been completely unprofessional throughout the submission procedure. They caused a huge delay with publishing and even though they had secured a review (it was on the system for some time) they did not share those comments. Because the decision was a withdrawal and not a rejection we were not offered the possibility of transfer. Avoid this journal at all costs!
Motivation:
The review process was timely and the reviewers' comments were thorough and significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. We are very happy with how the manuscript was handled by the journal's editor and impressed with the quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
The initial set of reviewer's comments included only two of the three sets of comments - no one had noticed the comments from one reviewer were missing. We had to chase these. The comments from the third reviewer were so vague and poorly communicated (language and content) we struggled to understand them and raised a concern about these. We received quite rude comments from the editor on why she thought the reviewer was correct to reject the paper. We responded to all three sets of comments and the editor's but requested reviewer 3 was not consulted in the second round of reviews because of the poor quality of their comments. This was ignored. We received further feedback from all three reviewers and then the paper was rejected. Interestingly the second round of comments were clear enough to understand the editor(s) obviously felt that the quality of the initial peer review which was unintelligible was sufficient for the journal which concerned us. It is probably worth saying we did publish there previously - several years ago and the experience was more positive in terms of quality of comments so this may not be typical.
Motivation:
The review process was very efficient, and the manuscript handling was transparent. However, despite the acceptance of the manuscript, the paper has not been published online even after more than six weeks. Considering this is an online-only journal with almost 3,000 € publication fee, such a delay is disappointing.
Motivation:
Here is one of the two reviews I received (the other one was constructive): "As far as I can tell, the author is proposing that a linear thermodynamic theory based on Onsager's seminal work may be more widely applicable than most scientist would think. Unfortunately, the author seems to have slightly incorrect understanding of what various terms and phrases mean, and hence by the third or fourth paragraph the paper devolves to an incoherent jumble of phrases that at least to me have little relation to one another. The author uses, e.g., the term linearity, without explaining what is assumed to linearly depend on what. Nowhere is the term Onsager reciprocity, as used in this paper, defined with any precision. The bottom line is that I can not identify any specific contribution of this paper." The editor accepted this review and decided to reject the paper on its basis.
Motivation:
Reviewer's feedback is very general, some even not correct. Almost cannot improve the paper from comments. However, the most frustrating issue is the total handling time.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted, and when I emailed the editor to inquire about the review, they responded that they were looking for reviewers. The next day, however, they informed me that the work did not meet the standards required for publication. While the editor is not obligated to accept a paper for review, waiting almost three months to then provide such feedback is infuriating and shows blatant disregard for the authors and researchers submitting their papers.
Motivation:
One reviewer suggetsed conditional accept, one R&R, and one did not like the quantiative approach and suggested that this should have been a qualitative paper and hence rejected it. Very bad handling by the editors.
Motivation:
The two reviews comprised of one extensive report (and very useful in helping improve the manuscript further) and one paragraph of bullet points that were barely legible. The editor sided with the latter and recommended transfer to JoH-Regional Studies. The assistant editor's summary did not line up with what was written in the reviews, to the point that their two sentences seem boilerplate.
Motivation:
Rejected after review with no possible revisions, with one negative review stating necessary information is missing when the reviewer misunderstood the manuscript that had the information.
Motivation:
8 months of review time after which I finally received the review. The review itself was very positive yet the article was rejected without any reason given. A journal to which I will never submit an article again...
Motivation:
Avoid this journal - Two very positive reviews, one negative, full of mistakes and shortcomings. Even after revision, the editor chose to follow the guidance of the reviewer who demonstrated a lack of awareness of the topic. Raises doubts about the validity of the peer review process.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely slow. It seems that one of the reviewers to whom the review was sent never responded, and the journal took a long time to contact another reviewer (in fact, they only did so after we inquired about the status of the review). The selection of reviewers was disastrous. They neither understood the methodology (quantitative) nor the motivation of the article nor the conclusions. We received feedback that had little to do with our work.