Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I don't think the reviewers gave careful enough consideration to our paper. We rewrote it nevertheless and published it elsewhere - this could have been done at the same journal, had they not rejected it. I have to note that the initial submission took quite a lot of work.
6.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was transparent with proper communication and responses. The editor, handling editor and assistants are very helpful. The reviewers are well qualified and provide valuable comments to improve the overall manuscript content and presentation. I will definitely recommend this journal for my colleagues.
Motivation:
Commendable reviews by the SIVP reviewers.
Motivation:
Very good and friendly editor. Nice handling of the manuscript. Gives own input as well.
Free Open-access journal!
Free Open-access journal!
Motivation:
It seems that the manuscript needs improved clarity as the editor and reviewers were confused about some fundamental aspects of the methods and results. Furthermore, an editor misinterpreted a figure and drew false conclusions about inconsistency in our data. As for the two reviewer reports, one reviewer recommended acceptance after minor revision, and another reviewer recommended more robust revisions which were all doable. Some of the revisions this reviewer categorized as "major" were actually editorial remarks about how to structure the order of paragraphs. Neither of the reviewers outright suggested rejection in their comments. At least all the comments were thorough and justified from the editors' and reviewers' points of view. Also the decision was a relatively quick turnaround.
Motivation:
The revision were good and helpful. The revision process was too fast.
Motivation:
First review round needed 6.4 weeks. This is not so short but I expected longer time would be required for this round. The comments from reviewers are good and contribute to improve my manuscript. Second review round needed 2 weeks and this is acceptable. New submission system they introduced is helpful. Some information of the reviewing progress can be obtained from the system.
Motivation:
The editor provided great insights into our manuscript to make it stronger. The submission process is smooth and swift.
Motivation:
The review process was very good
Motivation:
While the initial reviewer suggestions appeared reasonable and eventually improved the manuscript, the process in it's entirety was convoluted and unnecessarily taxing. To elucidate, there was a new editor introduced for each round of revisions (therefore, no revision was dealt with by the previous or same editor). Perhaps most glaringly, the third editor (handling the second revision) introduced a new reviewer as well as suggested changes of their own, which they did not come to evaluate themselves following the third revision.
Motivation:
The time the whole process took was reasonable, the editor was polite and informative.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.
Motivation:
Applied energy journal publish papers from authors they know personally, basically it's favoritism, not a scientific evaluation by editorial board
Motivation:
My paper was rejected after a poor review. Reviewer comments appeared to be created with ChatGPT. I inquired the editorial office about the quality of the reviews and my emails got ignored.
Motivation:
Review was not blind, and comments were extremely rude and derogatory.
Motivation:
Média de dois até a publicação.
Motivation:
The review process took way too long and the reviewers' suggestions did not improve the paper substantially.
Motivation:
The submission to PLOS One was just so staggeringly bad it was hard to believe. After 6 months from submission I withdrew the article - in that time it had been handled by 4 different editors, got 'stuck' in the initial review stage, and was not passed over to another editor when one left. The email communication I had with one of the journal staff was incredible, very cold and dismissive. Simply this was the worst experience with any journal in 25 years. My final exchange with the last editor finished with him says 'Yeah, I agree this is terrible'.
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Motivation:
After submission, absolutely nothing happened for a while: there was no status change in the system at all indicating that the manuscript was with the editors or still just submitted. I also noticed there was a change in the editors in the meanwhile and quite frankly I have the impression that the manuscript was simply forgotten. Due to the language and the phenomenon I investigated, the editors should have taken time to find adequate reviewers. Rather than doing so, I all of a sudden got desk rejection with completely ridiculous "arguments" that only revealed that the editor(s) did not read the entire manuscript. Had the editors identified substantial issues concerning the amnuscript, the situation would be different, but wondering about very basic notions of linguistics was completely unexpected.
Motivation:
A rather generic message was given: 'Unfortunately, after an initial screening, we did not find it suitable for BITE, thus regretfully will not be able to consider for publication'
And some extra information.
And some extra information.
Motivation:
First round of peer review took over 2 months.