Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
- High quality of review feedback, it contributed to improve significantly the manuscript
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
Motivation:
After correcting some minor points in the 1st round, the manuscript was surprisingly sent out for review and took quite some time to get the decision.
Motivation:
Really impressed by the quick evaluation by a senior editor and main editor where it was recommended as a full manuscript to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Really impressed by the quick evaluation by a senior editor and main editor where it was recommended as a full manuscript to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Motivation:
The reviewing and editorial process was very slow. I sent an corresponding email 3 times without respond. I have to contact the customer suport for their help, which thay told me there is some issue about the editorial process that make the decision took more than 6 months. In general, this is a good journal and the reviewers' comments were good, but the editorial process was too slow (maybe due to COVID?).
Motivation:
Do you think this review process was ethical?
Motivation:
First review round took 73.9 weeks (17 months)! Moreover, during that time period the corresponding author inquired the status of the manuscript five (5) times using the publisher's submission system option. These inquiries were never answered. The manuscript was progressed towards the decision only when the senior author of the manuscript send personal email to the Editor in chief. The two of the received reviews were obviously very short (256 and 168 words long respectively), quickly written and generic (not referring to details in the manuscript). I do not advise colleagues to send papers to Expert Systems With Applications.
Motivation:
The editorial process is thorough and seemingly fair. The reviews were appropriate. My biggest problem with this journal is their arcane submission and review process. A paper that was very well received by reviewers and that required relatively minor revisions still took more than one year between initial submission and publication. If you are concerned about timeliness of publication, or being scooped, this is not your journal.
Motivation:
The initial review process took over a year, because the editor was not able to find suitable reviewers and reviewers who agreed to the task did not answer anymore afterwards. So finally, the editor reviewed the paper himself. I know he is very knowledgeable in this field, but I find it a bit disappointing, that no other reviewers answered back.
Motivation:
The entire review process of the journal "Agronomy for Sustainable Development" was smooth and enlightening. The reviewers of the journal are knowledgeable and their review could potentially enhance the quality of the submitted manuscript to a much higher level. The managing editors are supportive and are flexible particularly with respect to time of submission of revisions. The issue faced by the authors are very punctually addressed by the editors which makes it easy during review and editing process.
Motivation:
Reasonable waiting time for reviewers to get back to us, in general good experience publishing with this journal.
Motivation:
The communication from the journal was consistently poor. I spent many hours implementing the recommendations from the original review panel, only for my paper to be sent to new reviewers who were not sent an overview of the revisions asked of me. I waited 7 months to receive feedback from the 2 new reviewers, one of whom only provided 3 sentences of feedback. Although the original review process was productive, the second review process was disappointing due to the length of time waited and lack of detail provided.
Motivation:
Manuscript did not have broad enough appeal. Kind letter from editors.
Motivation:
Our paper was eventually accepted after a very large revision that took many experiments and resources to carry out. This was stimulated by the fact that all the reviewers wanted many different experiments done for the paper to be a "Neuron paper". I think overall the experience was positive. The editors will do whatever the reviewers indicate, so if the reviewers indicate that you need to do a ton of work for the revision, then either you do it or you look elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review time was really long. What made it worse was that the reviews did not seem to be coming from someone who read the paper thoroughly and understood it. It seemed like the reviewers did not spend enough time on the paper.
Motivation:
This manuscript may be of great interest to specialist but does on have general interest. I suggest a specialist journal would be more appropriate.
Motivation:
The process should have been much faster. The prolongation of the editorial process lowered our chances of publishing it in competing D1 journals.
Motivation:
I appreciate the swift decision. In addition, the editorial mail provided useful and constructive comments.
Motivation:
A reviewer probably did not read our manuscript but just showed general opinions since there are not any specific comments on our manuscript. There would be another possibility that the comments were made for the other paper review and they were used again as the present review without reading our paper. Another reviewer posed just some short specific comments only for the definition of Nusselt number. Besides, the reviewer misunderstood it. An editor did not check these reviewers' comments carefully and judged the manuscript did reach the required quality of the standard journal. This was the most terrible experience that I have ever had. For this unfair decision, I sent emails several times to the editor, but I have not received any replies from him at all.
Motivation:
The manuscript was desk-rejected in Proc B due to lack of broad implications, and redirected to Cladistics. The review process was overall smooth.
Motivation:
This review took a bit longer than usual, but the reviews were extensive.
Motivation:
It took longer due to covid, but the managing editor kept updating the review status, which I really appreciated.
Motivation:
RSC Advances had Article Processing Charges of ~750 GBP. We were forwarded to this journal by the Editor of Green Chemistry, who rejected our manuscript. After slight modifications, we submitted the manuscript and got two reviews after two months waiting. One quite positive and reasonable, another borderline with little substantiation. We revised the manuscript, which was accepted after 3 weeks and published after another week or so.
Motivation:
It takes 6 months to get the 1st review comments. Two reviewers' comments are of high quality but polarized, one suggesting minor revision and find it very interesting, while the other points out a few critics on the theory and methods, which can all be easily solved by revision. Unfortunately, the editors did not grant a revising or an opportunity for explanation. It takes quite long and should have already been in R&R if in other journals.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were very positive, one was hostile because we did not refer to critical race theory, and then made up criticism that simply does not apply. It's really puzzling how the editor handled this, because already the abstract makes it clear that this made-up criticism does not apply. I guess the editor does not accept papers where one of the reviewers suggests a rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers presented fair criticism of our manuscript and it was returned in a timely manner.
Motivation:
The reviewers suggested relevant and straightforward changes. The editor was able to accept the revised manuscript without sending to reviewers again. The only slow step was going from submission to having an editor assigned (few weeks), but after that it proceeded quickly.
Motivation:
The immediate rejection took 2 weeks
Motivation:
We used to publish tribology-related manuscripts in Ind Eng Chem Res, but this time the Editor claimed this was not a topic of interest
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by Surface and Coatings Technology, but after we submitted almost the same thing to another Q1 journal, it was accepted.
Motivation:
The immediate rejection came after 4 days