Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The Editor considered our manuscript 'out of scope' and suggested transferring to Materials Today Communications with zero Article Processing Charge. We successfully used the Editor's suggestion
Motivation:
Fast rejection of the presubmission inquiry.
Motivation:
The journal is an open source journal. They invited me to submit an article then after it was accepted, they asked for $2,000
Motivation:
Another smooth experience with JEMS, very helpful reviewer comments that helped improve the manuscript and clarifying how the paper relates to the literature.
Motivation:
After reading our presubmission inquiry, the editor did not encourage us to submit the paper due to lack of impact. He suggested to consider PLoS ONE, which I felt little insulting. But we saved some time and appreciated the fast decision.
Motivation:
The feedback was useful although one reviewer seemed to miss the information that had been included (saying it was not included). Additionally, we did incorporate and resubmit to another journal. The biggest issue was the length of time for feedback and the reviewers seemed to have skimmed the article.
Motivation:
This review was not lengthy and no external review was done however, we did change the introduction one more time and this article is now under review at a higher quality journal... so who knows!
Motivation:
The first review round was a good experience: three high-quality reports which helped to improve my manuscript a lot. However, the send review round took a bit more time than I expected, probably due to the summer holiday. Overall, nice experience.
Motivation:
After the manuscript had not been assigned to an editor in almost 3 months, we, unfortunately, had to make the decision to withdraw and submit to another journal. We asked repeatedly about the hold-up and were assured that they were doing their best to find an editor. However, the duration of this process made us question if they were able to find an editor at all, so we decided to withdraw.
Motivation:
Overall, my manuscript was handled well and swiftly. It was send to two reviewers who provided constructive feedback as well as praise for the experiment. I was very happy with the whole review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers and editor were critical but constructive. Their focussed feedback resulted in us revising the manuscript and ending up with a stronger article overall. I would highly recommend this journal
Motivation:
Roughly one and a half months after submission I got 2 reviews. Reviewer #1 thought that the interpretation of data was incorrect (due to an incomplete understanding of the methodology which is partly my fault for not explaining). Reviewer #2 didn't question the correctness of the methodology, seemed to be aware of the developments in the field, but found the paper not groundbreaking enough for Adv. Sci. Tried appealing but in vain.
As both referees agreed that the work has scientific significance, the editor offered a transfer to 3 journals IF 3-4 which I rejected. I believe that the comments of referees were quite useful as correcting them would really improve the quality of the manuscript and it would get published in a journal with a similar IF like Adv. Sci. The editor was really nice and helpful and really tried finding a place for my work at Wiley.
As both referees agreed that the work has scientific significance, the editor offered a transfer to 3 journals IF 3-4 which I rejected. I believe that the comments of referees were quite useful as correcting them would really improve the quality of the manuscript and it would get published in a journal with a similar IF like Adv. Sci. The editor was really nice and helpful and really tried finding a place for my work at Wiley.
Motivation:
The original manuscript received favorable reviews but the editor requested us to reformat it to Letter to the Editor. The revised manuscript was promptly rejected without external review due to lack of space.
19.3 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The quality of reviews was high but the process was slow
Motivation:
The submission process is clear and easy. However, after submission everything went downhill. After the manuscript had been stuck in "editor invited" for 2 months, we contacted the journal if we could help find an editor, and received a boilerplate answer that "our paper had their full attention". After another 5 weeks without a change in status, we decided to withdraw the manuscript.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.
Motivation:
The experience was great. The editor responded very quickly, the reviewers' suggestions are constructive, and the quality of the article really improved after the revision. I think the quality of the article has been improved.
Motivation:
This journal is quick in review process. All reviewers are friendly and put energy to improve the ms. Especially, Editor is wonderful, quick in response, and so friendly in word use.
Motivation:
If an article is not suitable, then the desk rejection should be within a week. I believe the editor made a subjective decision because I found a specific category from the journal that our article fits.
Motivation:
I received very good reports, from reviewers that definitively understood and studied the paper. The reports not only were very timely, but also requested some interesting and pertinent modifications in the paper, which improved the earlier version. My overall experience with this journal is excellent and definitively I plan to submit future works.
Motivation:
The process duration was totally in accordance with the estimated duration stated in the journal website. The reviewers' comments were professional and helped imporved the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround with reviews and responsive editorial team. Quality reviews.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected by a reviewer that changed his mind in the second round of reviews. I found it unprofessional since it could reject it at the first round instead of making me address some concerns that were not taken into consideration.
Motivation:
Very quick turn around time and high-quality reviewer reports. Ultimately the paper was rejected but peer review helped us improve our work.