Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editorial decision was quick. We also submitted an appeal and after 2 weeks we got another more detailed rejection letter.
Motivation:
Review was based on editors' beliefs about the relationships between variables rather than anything based on science.
Motivation:
"We hope that you will not view this as a rejection but rather that it reflects the Editorial Team's opinion on the fit of your manuscript with our aims and objectives. It may be well received by other journals with a different focus. We also hope that our expedited yet rigorous process gives authors the opportunity to rapidly move to another Journal."
Motivation:
I think that the decision to reject the manuscript just because there are errors in the order of the template is a strict decision
Motivation:
The first round of review was rather fast. However, out of 3 reviews, 2 where troublesome:
- The first one was about another submission than mine! Possibly the reviewer swapped two parallel reviews when submitting; possibly the problem lied in the journal information system. Anyway, the managing editor did not notice, which in itself, means something. I immediately contacted the editor, but my email remained unanswered.
- The second one was essentially a reviewer’s attempt to coerce citations (like explained in https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360?login=true) which is ethically questionable. Concretely, the review was built around a list of 13 papers supposedly about the subject, among which 11 were from the same research group (good point: the other two papers were meaningful indeed). The editor did not notice too, but considering the absence of answer to my first email, I did not email about the ethical concern raised by this second review.
- The third one was a classical review, with a summary of the article, a short highlight of its strengths, followed by few major concerns and a list of minor issues. As this review was enriching, I decided to revise and resubmit despite the 2 other reviews. A noticeable fact was that the managing editor changed in between.
The second round appeared to be longer than the first. Long after the average time claimed on the journal website (8 to 12 weeks), I contacted the editor, and I received a void response (something like, "sorry, but it depends on the reviewers' responsiveness"). All my further emails/inquiries remained unresponded to.
Finally, after almost 26 weeks, considering this was longer than necessary to evaluate a revised paper, I withdrawn my submission by email.
- The first one was about another submission than mine! Possibly the reviewer swapped two parallel reviews when submitting; possibly the problem lied in the journal information system. Anyway, the managing editor did not notice, which in itself, means something. I immediately contacted the editor, but my email remained unanswered.
- The second one was essentially a reviewer’s attempt to coerce citations (like explained in https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360?login=true) which is ethically questionable. Concretely, the review was built around a list of 13 papers supposedly about the subject, among which 11 were from the same research group (good point: the other two papers were meaningful indeed). The editor did not notice too, but considering the absence of answer to my first email, I did not email about the ethical concern raised by this second review.
- The third one was a classical review, with a summary of the article, a short highlight of its strengths, followed by few major concerns and a list of minor issues. As this review was enriching, I decided to revise and resubmit despite the 2 other reviews. A noticeable fact was that the managing editor changed in between.
The second round appeared to be longer than the first. Long after the average time claimed on the journal website (8 to 12 weeks), I contacted the editor, and I received a void response (something like, "sorry, but it depends on the reviewers' responsiveness"). All my further emails/inquiries remained unresponded to.
Finally, after almost 26 weeks, considering this was longer than necessary to evaluate a revised paper, I withdrawn my submission by email.
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
some reviews are general and focus on form not content.
Motivation:
Very fast review speed, good reviews (helpful to improve the journal). In general a smooth review process.
Motivation:
3 months to desk reject!!!
Motivation:
comments from the reviewers were very constructive, pertinent, and of high quality. the manuscript improved much with the comments. The main difficulty is to fit the article according to the journal's guidelines since there is no Latex template.
35.7 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Reviews were comparatively minor as many of the issues simply required further clarification and re-phrasing. Despite being rejected, the reviewer comments were manageable or certainly worthwhile having another attempt to revise.
Motivation:
Thorough and fair review that highlighted some key undiscovered pitfalls. Clear and rapid review process. Blind review process by default, although one reviewer chose to unveil identity.
Motivation:
DON'T send to this journal. Very disorganized. Took six months for desk reject, during which did not replied to any of my emails.
Motivation:
Three months of review and the journal sent us only two reviews of very bad quality. Poor English and non-sense sentences. One of the two reviewers recommended the acceptance and the other one recommended reject; the editor decided for the latter one.
Motivation:
Journal from the repurational NCCN community. Smoothy review process. The editor is very responsive and helpful in the submitting journey.
Motivation:
Editorial desk rejection with short justification arguing that the contribution was not relevant enough for the journal.
Motivation:
We received helpful reviews, but the peer review process took over a year.
Motivation:
There were issues with the interactive forum. After replying to the reviewers, one of the reviewer's tabs was stuck in "Resubmit manuscript" without any further comments or questions. That made me feel it was an error with the manuscript state. After requesting several deadline extensions and exchanging far too many messages and emails with the editor and the editorial office, they sorted it out and the paper changed the state to "accepted" immediately.
Motivation:
After 36 weeks of keeping the manuscript, it was rejected without any review report. The editorial message was also like desk rejection.
Immediately accepted after 15.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
I am happy to have my paper accepted within four months of submission, but I am surprised that it was accepted right away with no feedback from any peer reviewers. The editor only had some very minor editorial comments (e.g., add some current references).
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 103.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After more than 3 months the editor could not reach any reviewer to review my manuscript. However, the editor did not communicate us any information about the process. So, we were waiting more than 3 months and expecting to receive news while the manuscript were not even sent to reviewers.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed by 3 reviewers. One reviewer said that the overall quality of the paper cannot be judged based on a single review and wrote lots of comments, which I revised then thoughtfully. When the revised manuscript was sent to this reviewer again, he/she recommended a rejection. The other reviewer recommended a rejection straight at the beginning with incomprehensible reasons, e.g., the introduction is too short and the conclusions are too long.
Motivation:
Extremely slow initial review. Disappointing to wait 3 weeks for a desk rejection and no critique. Likely a highly selective process and insiders favored? Not super confident about process, objectivity, or rigor for this journal. There is no transfer option at this journal.
Motivation:
The article was first accepted based on an abstract in October 2021, and two months (December 2021) later the full paper was due. The revisions came in quickly (February 2022), the editors were helpful and the reviewers provided constructive comments.
Motivation:
The handling editor was not response and had to wait for 5 months for her decision. The journal office will just ask the authors to wait.
Motivation:
Although our paper was accepted and my view might be somewhat biased, I must say that the process was incredibly smooth relative to what I had heard about the persnicketiness of APA journals (I guess we were extra careful to dot all the i's.....).
If nothing else, the process of review was **fast**! Much faster than recent experiences with paid-for open-access journals. So overall, very happy with the review process etc.
If nothing else, the process of review was **fast**! Much faster than recent experiences with paid-for open-access journals. So overall, very happy with the review process etc.
Motivation:
Processing time was quick. And the reviews were good. This journal is an open-access journal (SCOPUS-indexed) without fee for both authors and reviewers. Submission is by email but the assistant editor is very responsive. Highly recommended!
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and punctual.
Two reviewers did constructive comments, while the third one was non understanding basic statistical analyses and was asking experiments already performed in other studies from our group described in the introduction. Further, this reviewer was really unprofessional making jokes in brackets.
But for the rest everything was fine.
Two reviewers did constructive comments, while the third one was non understanding basic statistical analyses and was asking experiments already performed in other studies from our group described in the introduction. Further, this reviewer was really unprofessional making jokes in brackets.
But for the rest everything was fine.
Motivation:
The journal provided a swift and fluent review process that helped the authors present the manuscript in a clear and complete manner.
Motivation:
The entire process took a long time and we appreciated the in-depth reviews that helped improve the manuscript. In the end, the manuscript was rejected in part due to points that were raised in the first review round. The raised points were valid criticism but we would have preferred a rejection on these points earlier in the process.
Motivation:
I think my article must be sent to review. The editor accepted that it is of interest and technical merit. Why did not the editor send it to reviewers? My article had more comprehensive method and results than previos article of same subject in the journal. There was a comparison results between my article and them.
Motivation:
Our manuscript went through two rounds of peer review. After the second round, both anonymous reviewers suggested accepting the paper for publication. The editor, however, requested us to revise and resubmit for a 3rd round of peer review. We followed the instructions and resubmitted the paper after addressing his comments. After that, the editor went radio silent. He didn't bother to send the revised manuscript to external reviewers or respond to any of our emails. He did not even make an editorial decision. After months of waiting and not receiving a response, we ended up withdrawing the paper. Completely waste of time for the authors and reviewers. This is the most unprofessional and unethical behavior I've seen from any editorial team.