Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
First I was very surprise to see that we had 1 unique reviewer and his first statement was that the topic was complex (so obviously not someone from the field). He made a lot of criticism but we were able to make corrections and provide more data. After a first round, the reviewer was still unsatisfied and ask for more experiment to be done (that were not asked at first). Even though surprising, we have done all the corrections required by the referee but he finally decided to reject the paper for an unclear reason ("the work has no clear focus (???)") . Anyway, having 1 biased reviewer just demonstrates the poor rigour of the journal.
Motivation:
Initial reviews were quite hostile and, frankly, unprofessional. However, we were able to secure a second round of reviews after a successful appeal to the editor.
Motivation:
Extremely quick, smooth review process
Motivation:
Lightning fast review times! A very smooth process. However the two reviewers were within a single subfield, which related to our topic but was not the central subfield it was speaking to.
Motivation:
First decision was fast. Review comments wasn't mentioned.
Motivation:
The overall review process and quality of review questions were good. However, the total manuscript handling time was quite long.
Motivation:
Our experience with this journal was terrible. We waited over 20 weeks to receive an immediate reject with the most generic justification possible. We tried to get in touch by e-mail with the journal several times and got no response.
Motivation:
The reviews contained some helpful comments, which will help improve the manuscript further.
Motivation:
Efficient review process, with helpful reviewers' comments.
Motivation:
Very fast.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
Motivation:
Quick and efficient review process, with clear reasons for the rejection.
Motivation:
Finalizing a decision based on the comments of a single reviewer based on a few benchmark results with regard to its all round performance following days of testing and validation and the inability and untimely action of the associate editor raises many questions. The reviewers are absolutely useless with their generalized comments (Most comments are very vague with the comment that a very huge gap exists between the results and conclusion for a manuscript of about 90 pages with 50K words) and expecting the duck to lay golden eggs without feeding it properly.
Motivation:
I did not hear anything from Scientific Reports after 4 months since the initial submission. Upon contacting the journal, I found that they still had not assigned even an editor to handle the manuscript - and according to them, all of their senior editors were busy at the moment.
Since I am not working on any exotic field, lack of professionalism is the only plausible reason for not finding an editor to handle the peer-review process.
Therefore, after 4 lost months my colleagues and I opted to withdraw our manuscript - evidently, we will never submit anything to Scientific Reports or review for this journal again.
Since I am not working on any exotic field, lack of professionalism is the only plausible reason for not finding an editor to handle the peer-review process.
Therefore, after 4 lost months my colleagues and I opted to withdraw our manuscript - evidently, we will never submit anything to Scientific Reports or review for this journal again.
Motivation:
We received timely and quality comments to our review manuscript. Everything was handled during an average timeframe (about 1 month from submission to decision each time). Reviewers were fair with their comments, and the resulting manuscript benefitted from the suggestions.
Motivation:
Although the submitted paper was rejected by jacs, the following revision based on the reviewers' comments significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Motivation:
Our Paper was a complete study on a widely used drug. Previously, another paper had been published in STM which we disproved through thorough experiments and mathematical modeling. The handling editor is probably the same. They rejected the paper without any given reason/peer review as they don't want to accept that they published a scientifically incorrect paper in the recent past. This journal runs its own propaganda.
Motivation:
The reviewers were expert in the field. The journal office was helpful and responsive.
Motivation:
Merely "interesting" and not "ground-breaking" apparently.