Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My experience with FIP was not so satisfactory. The outcome is that I withdrew the submission.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and the submission process was straightforward.
Motivation:
Long review process. Two reviews were around a paragraph with no engagement with the actual manuscript. One reviewer was constructive and helpful, but freely admitted to not understanding the basics of the quantitative methods despite providing critiques. Editor indicated agreeing with the reviewers despite the reviewers providing contradictory statements, such as one reviewer saying there was bad engagement with the literature and the other indicating that the literature review was easy to follow and comprehensive.
28.0 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The paper was handled in a very poor way. It was under review for almost 7 months and the AE failed to secure two referees. The report we received by a single referee had criticisms that were either scientifically wrong or referred to typos that could easily be fixed. The AE was also obviously not following even the broader topic elaborated in the paper. The problem with the process of the journal is not the rejection per se. Many journals might reject a paper even if nothing is technically wrong with it. It is simply disrespectful to have a paper for 7 months and not even manage to provide feedback from two reviewers. After the first 5 months or so I had to bother them with emails every now and then, only to get answers of the type that “the AE is working hard to secure a second referee”. That info was first sent to me on Feb 23rd, 2023 while the paper was submitted on Sept 5th, 2022. The paper got rejected on the 20th of March, 2023.
The paper was handled in a very poor way. It was under review for almost 7 months and the AE failed to secure two referees. The report we received by a single referee had criticisms that were either scientifically wrong or referred to typos that could easily be fixed. The AE was also obviously not following even the broader topic elaborated in the paper. The problem with the process of the journal is not the rejection per se. Many journals might reject a paper even if nothing is technically wrong with it. It is simply disrespectful to have a paper for 7 months and not even manage to provide feedback from two reviewers. After the first 5 months or so I had to bother them with emails every now and then, only to get answers of the type that “the AE is working hard to secure a second referee”. That info was first sent to me on Feb 23rd, 2023 while the paper was submitted on Sept 5th, 2022. The paper got rejected on the 20th of March, 2023.
Immediately accepted after 5.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editor did not chose two of the three reviewers well: from the comments, one of them likely was a reviewer that I had asked to be excluded due to conflict of interest, and the second did not know even the basics of the field of research.
Motivation:
3 months for a first review round is very long.
Motivation:
The time for finding reviewers was too long to wait.
Motivation:
"... do not feel that the perceived conceptual novelty of the manuscript warrants the broad audience Applied Materials Today serves."
The long review time (4.6 weeks) for an editorial desk rejection is disappointing.
The long review time (4.6 weeks) for an editorial desk rejection is disappointing.
Motivation:
Manuscript took over 2.5 months to be sent to review. Had to follow up several times with the Editor. They said it was a particularly bad period so maybe it's better since. One of the reviewers was pretty bad (only couple sentences, did not know method, etc)
Motivation:
For a manuscript submitted in the core subject area of the journal, the editorial board couldn't find more than one reviewer. They did not even ask for suggestions from authors for more reviewers, when they couldn't find sufficient reviewers. Extremely longer time (more than a year) for review process. Rejection reasons were not absolute and strong. As a new journal, needs more stringent review process to attract more social researchers or even interdisciplinary researchers.
Motivation:
The job of reviewers was quite good. Unfortunately, this was not the case for the editor. It took a month from the time the reviewers made the review to the time we got the feedback. Moreover, he reject the paper without giving a reasoned motivation. In fact, we wish we could respond to the reviewers.
Motivation:
The process took extremely long (for a Discussion article), and I did not receive review reports so I am not sure whether it has been reviewed apart from the editors. Finally, the Closure that belonged to this Discussion did not match (e.g. referring to non-existing figures), so it seems the editors did not check and read carefully.
Motivation:
I found out about Web Ecology by searching in the DAFNEE database for society-based open access journals. I am very glad I found it. The EIC and managing editor were both very helpful and prompt in answering my pre-submission inquiry. The editor's guidance based on the reviews was very clear. The reviewing steps and publishing steps are all communicated very well so you always know what stage your manuscript is at.
Motivation:
Received three positive reviews amounting to minor revisions after initial submission, but the editor seemed incompetent or did not know what to the reviews said and ended up sending it back out for review two more times, wasting everyone's time. The journal changed my title after acceptance and necessitated corrections. One year after acceptance, the final version still has not be published in an issue.
Motivation:
It took 11 months for peer review. I inquired three times during that time. The reply was always just an apology; I thought if it was a rejection, they should reject it quickly so I could move on.
Motivation:
initial editorial decision (desk rejection) took quite long
Motivation:
I would not resubmit here. After more than 4 months we received news that the journal was unable of finding reviewers and that the academic editor was unresponsive. This was a pure waste of time.
Motivation:
I appreciated that the editor was communicative and replied fast.
Nevertheless, the report came after 7 months for a relatively short article, it was slim and it felt like the referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Nevertheless, the report came after 7 months for a relatively short article, it was slim and it felt like the referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Motivation:
We addressed all the comment in the R &R, the second round of reviewer brought up all new issues, which were not mentioned in the first round of review. Also the suggestion was very arbitrary and showed the reviewer’s lack of knowledge of the data set used in the paper as well as the misunderstanding of our paper.
Motivation:
The considerations made by the reviewers were partly wrong. After the first round of reviews (with three resubmissions), one reviewer decided that the work did not present scientific innovations and, therefore, should be rejected. After that, the article was sent to two more reviewers, who, after another round, accepted the work.
Motivation:
The reviews were extremely thorough and fair. It was worth the time it took to make revisions. The manuscript was improved.
Motivation:
Generally pleasant experience. The three reviewers were respectful and professional. The editors decision after the resubmission of the revised manuscript took a long time, I think because the editor got sick. I sent multiple inquiries to the state of the manuscript, which were handled very nicely and professionally. After the manuscript was accepted the journal continued to upload the wrong supplementary data but this was rectified after some more emails. Very lovely production team and very productive review process.
Motivation:
The first review round took three months, and despite that there was only one reviewer. The first round of reviews seemed fair, but in the second and third round the reviewer got hung up on something relatively minor that should have made them reject the manuscript outright if it was such a dealbreaker. The editor did not intervene in any way. Overall, the process took six months, during which the editor ignored most of our emails. Will never submit here again.
Motivation:
They were really fast about their decision; however, the lack of any feedback is disappointing.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was absurdly long, with 7 MONTHS from the submission to the first decision of revision and another 9 MONTHS waiting for the second report after my revision submission, and then the draft was rejected with no reason given by the editor. I do not know what to comment on this extremely long process (during which I could not submit my draft elsewhere and I am a graduate student with only 5 year period of my program!) and how disappointed I was. The editor was very irresponsible and unprofessional. I understand the acceptance rate is low, so I am not angry about the final denial. But they should at least reject it within a reasonable duration. If they could not do their job (I heard that the editor became a dean of her department recently), they should let the author know, so that we can consider submitting our paper to other journals. I don't know if this is normal for this journal or just for the last 2 years (due to transition of publisher), but I feel it does not deserve its reputation now. I rated 1 star for the quality of two of the referee report, otherwise a 17 months rejection with only two rounds of revision should be rated zero.
Motivation:
I had to suggest reviewers along the way, and at some point I stopped hearing from the editor for a while. I received the first review before a second reviewer was found.
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 simply stated that the manuscript did not fit the scope of the journal. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, stated the same thing but then also added several angry comments. The comments were very opinionated, and not scientifically based. No constructive feedback was provided and, overall, the review was very unhelpful.
Motivation:
It took the journal 6 months to come to the conclusion that "it does not fit the scope of the journal". As an early-career scholar, this amount of time is detrimental.