Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Quick desk reject, allows us to move on without waiting for long.
Motivation:
My experience with the editorial process was disappointing. After submitting my manuscript, the paper remained with the editor for approximately 18 days without being sent for peer review or showing any meaningful progress in the review process. Communication regarding the manuscript's status was limited, and there was no indication of when the review process would begin. Due to the lack of movement and uncertainty regarding the timeline, I decided to withdraw the manuscript. The withdrawal was processed, and the final disposition was recorded as "Withdrawn."
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
Motivation:
ISA Transactions desk rejection followed by reported eight-month submission restriction; unclear policy basis requested.
Motivation:
We received no notice over 17 months about this submission, although it seemed (inside the authors login) that several reviewers had agreed to review. We emailed multiple contacts at Springer Nature including sending a hard copy letter to BMC offices in London. Eventually we received an email saying that the editor withdrew our paper saying "Your submission entitled "XXX", which you submitted to BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth was found to be unsuitable for publication. A thorough assessment showed that the paper contains issues, including but not limited to: Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards. It has therefore been removed from our system. The factors taken into consideration in arriving at our decision to withdraw your paper do not allow us to offer an opportunity for resubmission or appeal."
We could not see how our paper was "Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards" because BMC published our very similar paper in 2023. We asked for the reviews that underpinned this 'withdrawal'- note that it was not 'rejected' - but had no response. I suspect that there were no reviewers reports and they wanted to get rid of it. In addition, this journal says they can pass on to other Springer Nature journals without full resubmission but this was not offered to us.
In addition, I have had one publication that went through well but 4 other poor experiences with this journal, including bad experiences reviewing for them; no response to pointing out misleading results in a publication; and a violation of our copyright that they eventually denied they had authorised. Also another experience of paper being rejected, I'll submit that separately. Overall, I do not recommend this journal
We could not see how our paper was "Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards" because BMC published our very similar paper in 2023. We asked for the reviews that underpinned this 'withdrawal'- note that it was not 'rejected' - but had no response. I suspect that there were no reviewers reports and they wanted to get rid of it. In addition, this journal says they can pass on to other Springer Nature journals without full resubmission but this was not offered to us.
In addition, I have had one publication that went through well but 4 other poor experiences with this journal, including bad experiences reviewing for them; no response to pointing out misleading results in a publication; and a violation of our copyright that they eventually denied they had authorised. Also another experience of paper being rejected, I'll submit that separately. Overall, I do not recommend this journal
Motivation:
It took a year and a half to receive the review report after submission, and they rejected the paper without allowing the author any explanation. It's a waste of time and shows no respect for scholarship. I sincerely advise against submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The challenges faced by early-career scholars are particularly acute in the humanities, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
I just received a first decision on a manuscript after 18 months of waiting—just a heads-up for anyone thinking of submitting to Cold War History (Taylor & Francis). Despite making several inquiries about the status of my submission, I was repeatedly told that the journal had been unable to secure suitable reviewers, leading to prolonged delays in the review process.
I get that peer review takes time, but 18 months for a decision is just unacceptable. It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. After a year and a half of silence, it was a straight-up rejection with zero opportunity to submit revisions or address the feedback.
It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. I hope that future authors will not encounter the same difficulties and prolonged uncertainty that I experienced during this process, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
I just received a first decision on a manuscript after 18 months of waiting—just a heads-up for anyone thinking of submitting to Cold War History (Taylor & Francis). Despite making several inquiries about the status of my submission, I was repeatedly told that the journal had been unable to secure suitable reviewers, leading to prolonged delays in the review process.
I get that peer review takes time, but 18 months for a decision is just unacceptable. It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. After a year and a half of silence, it was a straight-up rejection with zero opportunity to submit revisions or address the feedback.
It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. I hope that future authors will not encounter the same difficulties and prolonged uncertainty that I experienced during this process, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
Motivation:
I am honestly disappointed with the editorial handling of my manuscript at Empirical Economics. The decision took a long time, from late March to mid-June, yet the final explanation was quite brief and not fully convincing.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
Motivation:
Appreciated that it was not a boilerplate rejection. Editor's comments showed they had read it, they briefly explained why they felt it wasn't a fit, and then suggested the domain for alternative venues.
Motivation:
Our experience submitting to Scientific Reports was deeply disappointing on multiple fronts, and I would caution other researchers before choosing this journal.
First, we submitted specifically to be included in a Special Collection, which was the primary reason we chose Scientific Reports over other Journals. At no point during the editorial process were we informed that the Special Collection had changed or been discontinued. We only learned of this after the article had been paid for and published. We had also chosen to endure a particularly terrible editorial process because of this Special Collection.
Second, the timeline was unacceptable by any standard. Nearly a year passed from submission to acceptance. Our first revision alone took close to seven months (despite only 2 reviewers) and dozens of follow-up communications from our team to the Editorial office. Responses were slow and required persistent effort just to get basic status updates.
Third, and most concerning, we received conflicting information from the editorial team throughout those status update communications — information that appeared to misrepresent our manuscript's status. At best, the information we received was misleading and not transparent. They also refused to call or meet virtually to provide any explanation.
The quality of the peer review itself may be fine, but the editorial management surrounding it was not. Researchers should be aware of these issues before committing their work here.
First, we submitted specifically to be included in a Special Collection, which was the primary reason we chose Scientific Reports over other Journals. At no point during the editorial process were we informed that the Special Collection had changed or been discontinued. We only learned of this after the article had been paid for and published. We had also chosen to endure a particularly terrible editorial process because of this Special Collection.
Second, the timeline was unacceptable by any standard. Nearly a year passed from submission to acceptance. Our first revision alone took close to seven months (despite only 2 reviewers) and dozens of follow-up communications from our team to the Editorial office. Responses were slow and required persistent effort just to get basic status updates.
Third, and most concerning, we received conflicting information from the editorial team throughout those status update communications — information that appeared to misrepresent our manuscript's status. At best, the information we received was misleading and not transparent. They also refused to call or meet virtually to provide any explanation.
The quality of the peer review itself may be fine, but the editorial management surrounding it was not. Researchers should be aware of these issues before committing their work here.
Motivation:
It was a tortuously slow process to receive a decision on our original submission and even then there was only one review provided. We responded thoroughly to the reviewer's comments and yet still were rejected upon resubmission with no reasoning provided from the editor other than that the sole reviewer recommended rejection.
Motivation:
The reviews were interesting and informed. Although they were positive, the manuscript was rejected without a clear explanation from the editors. Aside from this, the journal is relatively fast and well managed.
Motivation:
Rejections are always disappointing, but the reason was well stated and justified. Moreover, both the reviews (three of them) and the editor's letter were constructive and will help us improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The journal demonstrates a well-organized and professional peer-review process. The editorial team handles submissions efficiently, and communication with authors is clear and timely. The review process is fair, constructive, and helps improve the quality of the manuscript. Overall, the journal maintains good academic standards and provides a positive experience for authors. Minor improvements in review time consistency could further enhance the process.
Motivation:
The submission system was well-structured and user-friendly. The editorial office responded promptly and helpfully to my questions regarding missing or unclear information. Overall, the process was smooth and professionally managed.
Motivation:
Good handling of the paper, smooth editorial/review process. Reviews were in-depth and useful.
Motivation:
Very slow reviews for short paper. Reviews were short and not very focused on the paper's actual context.
Motivation:
The experience was very good. The editor maintains good communication with the authors and helps with any questions you may have. It was also clear that the invited reviewers were experts in the field and, of course, their comments were valuable in improving the paper. Despite being a Q4 journal, it is a good option to consider for publication.
23.9 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
In addition to social sciences, it also accepts articles on education and health. The main issue with the journal was communication: I sent many emails, but they never replied (although it seemed they were reading them, since changes could be seen on the submission platform).
Motivation:
Smooth process. Editors check the papers and good review reports
Motivation:
The editor is very attentive and responds quickly to queries. In addition, I believe that the reviewers selected were experienced in the subject matter and their comments were helpful. Overall, the time from submission to publication is within the normal range.
Motivation:
Handling was fast and thus I give good marks here.
Motivation:
The review process is very fast.
Motivation:
The process was straightforward, review time reasonable, feedback meaningful and constructive, processing and publication effective and efficient.
Motivation:
Smooth process, useful review and overall quick progress towards publication.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were constructive but did not make sense to the research question. The reviewer had his own questions in mind and suggested different studies.
Motivation:
The editor accepted the paper without peer review. I asked for information about this decision, but I never received an answer or explanation. I withdrew the article because of the journal’s poor professionalism.
Motivation:
The manuscript was with the editor for more than six months without any advancement. The editors ignored the corresponding author and refused to provide updates, but were very quick to respond when we decided to withdraw the manuscript. The editorial team never owned up to their unprofessionalism. Not recommended.
Motivation:
Incredibly slow process. An 11 month turnaround time is simply unacceptable. The explanation provided by the journal was that they had trouble finding reviewers, but this was only provided in response to an enquiry after I had heard nothing from the journal for 7 months. Two of the three reviewers made sensible suggestions that will improve the quality of the paper. However reviewer 3 made a point that failed to engage with the existing research referenced in the paper arguing that the piece was deficient for not investigating the impact of an independent variable that has been shown to have no significant impact on the dependent variable in recent research conducted on the same case study. A competent reviewer should at least acknowledge the findings of existing research cited in the paper. Overall the quality of the reviews would not deter me from submitting to the journal in future, but the extremely lengthy turnaround time will.