Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
22.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
6 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I was fast and rigorous review.
Motivation:
There is an APC fee, which makes the process fast, I think they deserve it.
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Quite harsh criticism from one reviewer, and new reviewers in the next round (completely different comments). Constructive approach by editorial board.
Motivation:
Lousy journal. From mismanaging the initial submission to biased reviews and clueless associate editor.
I am not sure how the editors planned to attract submissions and to grow a new journal in this way, unless gatekeeping is what they are after.
I am not sure how the editors planned to attract submissions and to grow a new journal in this way, unless gatekeeping is what they are after.
Motivation:
the review process was quick
Motivation:
Totally useless reviews. One of the reviewers was obviously out of topic, and the second one wrote only one sentence that the paper would be better for a veterinary journal. I can't believe that the editor's decision was based on these poor reviews. Very unprofessional, and I will never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
The review comments were insightful and I believe that they elicited major improvements in the manuscript. The pre-acceptance period was also relatively quick based on experience.
Motivation:
Very fast and superficial review process that deemed my article did not "meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion".
Motivation:
The reviewers provided constructive feedback to help craft the manuscript in a sound manner. I recommend colleagues to submit their research related to adherence issues to this journal.
Immediately accepted after 26.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Very efficient review process with detailed and actionable comments from reviewers.
Motivation:
Very superficial decision
Motivation:
Have reviewed for CJR a significant number of times, and published in this journal twice. No automatic e-mail confirmation of receipt, and the submission platform does not allow paper writers to recommend possible reviewers nor suggest ones that may not be appropriate. Sent separate e-mail to editor, re issue, no response. After two weeks sent e-mail asking status, paper sent back with vague statement asking paper writer to conform to journal style. Inserted conflict of interest statement, sent back to journal, two weeks later paper checked platform which indicates that it is still administrative processing. Contact asst. ed. ask for explanation. Receive similar e-mail stating that paper needs to conform to journal subject and style. Write editor for explanation. Editor instructed me to find another journal.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 25.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This journal does not use an online submissions platform, but rather instructs authors to submit manuscripts to a submissions editor at their email address. Two weeks after submission, not having received an acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript from the submissions editor, I followed up with an email inquiring if they had received my submission. A week later, still with no reply, I followed up again with an email cc'd to the journal editors. Finally, after a fourth email was not acknowledged, I sent an email withdrawing my submission, almost a month after the initial submission.
I am not impressed at all with this journal at all and will not submit something to them again.
I am not impressed at all with this journal at all and will not submit something to them again.
6.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After the second round, the reviewers put "Reject" and "Major"; however, comments were really minor. The editor asked them to answer and accepted the article.
Motivation:
Nature Aging was only launched in January 2021, so at time of submission there was limited staff to follow up on slow reviewers and respond promptly to inquiries. Apart from the delays, the publishing process was comparable to other Nature Portfolio journals.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was extremely biased and had destructive criticism, she/he did not even read the results section, but just scrolled through the graphs, the second reviewer had more constructive criticism and seemed to had actually read the manuscript. The Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on that.
Motivation:
Editor suggested a "consumer behavior"-journal which is code for "bad research" among consumer culture scholars. No reason why the paper did not fit was offered (also, the paper did not in any way discuss "behavior", but supplied criticism of core tenets in consumer culture theory/practice theory).
Motivation:
The review process took 8 months in total, which is in line with the timeline provided on the journal website (214 days).
In the first (and only) round of comments (major revisions), the reports were quite detailed (2 reviewers and comments from three editors). It took us some time to revise the manuscript and respond accurately. However, I think that the review process helped improve our work. We appreciated that the editor accepted an extension of two weeks to respond to the comments. After one month from the re-submission, the manuscript was accepted for publication.
In the first (and only) round of comments (major revisions), the reports were quite detailed (2 reviewers and comments from three editors). It took us some time to revise the manuscript and respond accurately. However, I think that the review process helped improve our work. We appreciated that the editor accepted an extension of two weeks to respond to the comments. After one month from the re-submission, the manuscript was accepted for publication.
52.0 weeks
52.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal is very professional, but reviewing of the paper by this journal takes a long time.
Motivation:
Although this goes under "desk reject", I have never received such precise feedback on a desk rejection, clearly identifying why the paper was not a good fit for the journal.
52.0 weeks
55.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal is very professional, but reviewing of the paper by this journal takes a long time.
Motivation:
Editor was very responsive and proactive. Editorial office or system was very sensitive and flagged any and all potential threats to double blind review, no matter how minor. In some cases, no additional changes had to be made despite triggering the "identifying information potentially present" alarm, however this was after all authors were notified -and these types of notifications were automatic and frequent. I wish the system would insert the "triggers" in reports to the author so we could remedy the problem more expeditiously. Still the editorial office was responsive to email questions.