Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process is quite slow. The editor said that the reason why it took so long was waiting for the third reviewer, but there were only two in the end, one of whom has a very positive opinion, but the other has a completely opposite opinion. The main criticism is that the manuscript lacks details, although the journal has strict restrictions on the number of words and figures.
Motivation:
La revista sólo se publica anualmente.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.8 days
Drawn back
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 183.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I submitted a manuscript to this journal in May. The status in the online submissions platform was "reviewers assigned" in June. After four months, with the status still "reviewers assigned", I sent an email to the handling editor asking about the submission's status. There was no response. I sent another email after five months, with no response. After six months, I sent emails to the handling editor and the managing editor of the journal. Neither responded.
This was a frustrating waste of time. I will certainly not bother again with this journal.
This was a frustrating waste of time. I will certainly not bother again with this journal.
Motivation:
Around four month after handing in the manuscript we received the notification that the manuscript is under review and we got a link to track the status of the process. On that page we saw that reviewers were invited but actually none had accepted so far. So, two further month later we wrote an email to the editorial office. After 11 days we received the answer that our query is forwarded to the handling editor and he will do the needful. Two further month later, we were still on the same stage and wrote again a kind request to the editorial office. Ten day after that email our manuscript was rejected with the notification that they were not able to find the required number of reviewers to evaluate our manuscript. So we waited more than 8 month to get a rejection without any review.
Motivation:
Overall, the peer review helped to improve the manuscript, although mainly through the addition of pre-planned experiments rather than the immediate requests made by some of the reviewers. Additionally, while the editorial staff was quick in getting back to our queries, an initial deadline of 10 days for the first revision seemed very unreasonable given that they also requested further experiments which needed the cultivation of new specimens for at least 14 days. The set-out deadlines seemed even more unreasonable as the third (and last) review report has been forwarded two days after the start of the original revision process.
Motivation:
editorial comments indicate limited reading of the submission
Motivation:
We resubmitted our revised manuscript with comments to the five reviewers. Then, the handling editor lost communication. The reason was not disclosed. The second round was then abandoned for about six months. I contacted the editorial support team numerous times, but all they said was that the handling editor was still unresponsive. Eventually, the handling editor was changed, and the manuscript was rejected. We wasted our time. TWe will never submit our manuscript to this journal again.
Motivation:
It took a bit long before the editor got back to us, but the news were positive.
Reviewers were adequate.
Reviewers were adequate.
Motivation:
Desk reject from associate editor
Immediately accepted after 2.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
It's was ok
Motivation:
Although both of peer reviewer were super respect full and professional, the process was too long
Motivation:
Well, this was an easy one, but me and my fellow colleague have had to study and revise some points.
Motivation:
Fast but generic desk rejection.
Motivation:
10 reviewers were contacten but none accepted to review the paper.
8.1 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Smooth process. Good communication by the editor. Average review comments. Would submit again.
Motivation:
No reason was given for the rejection and no comments were given.
Motivation:
High-quality reviews, supporting and helpful editor, and efficient process. I like this new journal.
Motivation:
The reviews are good and clear in their verdict, even though we waited quite long for a final decision.
Motivation:
The Editor showed great professionalism and handled the revision extremely well. The chosen reviewer demonstrated a thorough reading of the manuscript and provided several pages of quite reasonable comments which helped improve the final article.
Motivation:
The first round of the review process was done very quickly and in high-quality.
Motivation:
The process was smooth. However, the review time that has been written on the journal's website is not correct. They calculate the review time from the last submission date, and many papers are faced by "reject and resubmit". The comments were not deep.
Motivation:
Typical experience, with longer gaps in between; we were surprised that the editor wanted to check the minor revisions at the end with the reviewers, but we're through.
Motivation:
The reviews were respectfully formulated and provided thoughtful feedback. Altough one point of one of the reviewers was practically infeaseable, the other points were managable critical comments and offered many important suggestions for improvement. The first revised manuscript we submitted exceeded the word limit (due to following extensive suggestions for improvment). The journal has thereupon requested to reduce the word count to comply with the word limit (seems that they are strict with regard to this). It would be nice if the journal would provide more precise information in the "Instructions for authors" which parts of the manuscript file count for the word limit (among other things, it is said title page information is exempt from the word count but not if the abstract is part of the title page information).
The speed of the review process was OK, I would consider to publish in this journal again.
The speed of the review process was OK, I would consider to publish in this journal again.
Motivation:
Timely and fair reviews. Smooth process all around. Proof corrections were challenging as copy editors made many incorrect changes.
Motivation:
Constructive and fair reviews without any significant delay during the process.
Motivation:
Very speedy reviewing process with constructive feedback. The first two reviews were very different, I assume a third reviewer (or editor) was asked to weigh in on the reviewing process which provided more insights. The article was definitely improved by the reviewing process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers were very quick about both the first round and post-revision review process. Reviews ranged from very simple text changes to major revisions. For some of the major revisions, exact experiments were not specified so we interpreted them as well as we could and tried to address them with the most appropriate experiments given the short time frame. Otherwise, this was overall a very easy process and I would definitely submit a paper to PNAS again.
Motivation:
Smooth review process, with constructive feedback from the editor and the reviewers that significantly improved the paper