Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
DON'T send to this journal. Very disorganized. Took six months for desk reject, during which did not replied to any of my emails.
Motivation:
Three months of review and the journal sent us only two reviews of very bad quality. Poor English and non-sense sentences. One of the two reviewers recommended the acceptance and the other one recommended reject; the editor decided for the latter one.
Motivation:
Journal from the repurational NCCN community. Smoothy review process. The editor is very responsive and helpful in the submitting journey.
Motivation:
Editorial desk rejection with short justification arguing that the contribution was not relevant enough for the journal.
Motivation:
We received helpful reviews, but the peer review process took over a year.
Motivation:
There were issues with the interactive forum. After replying to the reviewers, one of the reviewer's tabs was stuck in "Resubmit manuscript" without any further comments or questions. That made me feel it was an error with the manuscript state. After requesting several deadline extensions and exchanging far too many messages and emails with the editor and the editorial office, they sorted it out and the paper changed the state to "accepted" immediately.
Motivation:
After 36 weeks of keeping the manuscript, it was rejected without any review report. The editorial message was also like desk rejection.
Immediately accepted after 15.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
I am happy to have my paper accepted within four months of submission, but I am surprised that it was accepted right away with no feedback from any peer reviewers. The editor only had some very minor editorial comments (e.g., add some current references).
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 103.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After more than 3 months the editor could not reach any reviewer to review my manuscript. However, the editor did not communicate us any information about the process. So, we were waiting more than 3 months and expecting to receive news while the manuscript were not even sent to reviewers.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
We decided to withdraw the manuscript and send to another journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed by 3 reviewers. One reviewer said that the overall quality of the paper cannot be judged based on a single review and wrote lots of comments, which I revised then thoughtfully. When the revised manuscript was sent to this reviewer again, he/she recommended a rejection. The other reviewer recommended a rejection straight at the beginning with incomprehensible reasons, e.g., the introduction is too short and the conclusions are too long.
Motivation:
Extremely slow initial review. Disappointing to wait 3 weeks for a desk rejection and no critique. Likely a highly selective process and insiders favored? Not super confident about process, objectivity, or rigor for this journal. There is no transfer option at this journal.
Motivation:
The article was first accepted based on an abstract in October 2021, and two months (December 2021) later the full paper was due. The revisions came in quickly (February 2022), the editors were helpful and the reviewers provided constructive comments.
Motivation:
The handling editor was not response and had to wait for 5 months for her decision. The journal office will just ask the authors to wait.
Motivation:
Although our paper was accepted and my view might be somewhat biased, I must say that the process was incredibly smooth relative to what I had heard about the persnicketiness of APA journals (I guess we were extra careful to dot all the i's.....).
If nothing else, the process of review was **fast**! Much faster than recent experiences with paid-for open-access journals. So overall, very happy with the review process etc.
If nothing else, the process of review was **fast**! Much faster than recent experiences with paid-for open-access journals. So overall, very happy with the review process etc.
Motivation:
Processing time was quick. And the reviews were good. This journal is an open-access journal (SCOPUS-indexed) without fee for both authors and reviewers. Submission is by email but the assistant editor is very responsive. Highly recommended!
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and punctual.
Two reviewers did constructive comments, while the third one was non understanding basic statistical analyses and was asking experiments already performed in other studies from our group described in the introduction. Further, this reviewer was really unprofessional making jokes in brackets.
But for the rest everything was fine.
Two reviewers did constructive comments, while the third one was non understanding basic statistical analyses and was asking experiments already performed in other studies from our group described in the introduction. Further, this reviewer was really unprofessional making jokes in brackets.
But for the rest everything was fine.
Motivation:
The journal provided a swift and fluent review process that helped the authors present the manuscript in a clear and complete manner.
Motivation:
The entire process took a long time and we appreciated the in-depth reviews that helped improve the manuscript. In the end, the manuscript was rejected in part due to points that were raised in the first review round. The raised points were valid criticism but we would have preferred a rejection on these points earlier in the process.
Motivation:
I think my article must be sent to review. The editor accepted that it is of interest and technical merit. Why did not the editor send it to reviewers? My article had more comprehensive method and results than previos article of same subject in the journal. There was a comparison results between my article and them.
Motivation:
Our manuscript went through two rounds of peer review. After the second round, both anonymous reviewers suggested accepting the paper for publication. The editor, however, requested us to revise and resubmit for a 3rd round of peer review. We followed the instructions and resubmitted the paper after addressing his comments. After that, the editor went radio silent. He didn't bother to send the revised manuscript to external reviewers or respond to any of our emails. He did not even make an editorial decision. After months of waiting and not receiving a response, we ended up withdrawing the paper. Completely waste of time for the authors and reviewers. This is the most unprofessional and unethical behavior I've seen from any editorial team.
Motivation:
I have previously reviewed for PLoS ONE and had very good opinion about the journal. However, my opinion changed completely. I submitted the manuscript at the end of September 2021. The status soon changed to Under review (so far, so good). After not hearing back anything after four months (January 2022), I checked in with the editorial team and was ensured that the manuscript is out for peer review. After additional two months of not receiving reviews (March 2022), I, again, sent an email to the editorial team and was notified that the editor is having trouble securing reviewers. To make it easier for the editorial team, I provided several reviewer suggestions. After about two months of, again, not receiving any comments about my manuscript, I inquired again (May 2022) and received another (generic) reply that my manuscript has the full attention of the journal. Once again, about two months passed without hearing back about my manuscript, so I wrote to the editorial team (July 2022) that I am considering withdrawing the paper if the reviews have not been obtained yet. The editor responded that they have not been able to secure neither an academic editor nor feedback from peer reviewers in 42 weeks (which means that some of the previous replies were very deceiving). So, long story short, the manuscript was "under review" for about 10 months without even being assigned an academic editor ... Very frustrating. Based on my experience, I would suggest staying away from PLOS ONE.
Motivation:
The paper was deemed to be outside the scope of the journal. I appreciate the fast decision and respectful elaboration by the editor who also took the time to answer my additional queries.
Motivation:
It took over 5 months to get the decision. The reviews were tough (though fair) but didn't seem to contain anything to warrant a rejection. I feel that if the topic wasn't suitable for this journal that could have been decided much sooner.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 462.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
During the process of my wait for a proper review for 16 months, I exchanged a number of emails with the Journals Editorial Office (JEO) Assistant. He had informed me that my emails were forwarded to the Journal Editors, but they had difficulty finding reviewers. I have not received one single email from the journal Editors. The reviews were in and the decision was pending in the 9th month, as the journal system indicated, but the Editors could not make up their minds for 7 months and I simply gave up hope. At the time of this process, Cheri J. Shapiro and Anne F. Farrell were the Editors-in-Chief.
I emailed Springer Nature to inquire about my rights as an author and ask about the proper way to express my formal complaints about the lengthy review process. I also added that I wished to retract my work and asked to be informed about the withdrawing process. That correspondence also took another 6 weeks until I received a proper email indicating that I "successfully" retracted my paper.
Editorial misconduct includes the inaction of the editorial agents in a timely manner. I did not see the reviewers' comments and the journal stole not only my time but also at least two other scholars.
I emailed Springer Nature to inquire about my rights as an author and ask about the proper way to express my formal complaints about the lengthy review process. I also added that I wished to retract my work and asked to be informed about the withdrawing process. That correspondence also took another 6 weeks until I received a proper email indicating that I "successfully" retracted my paper.
Editorial misconduct includes the inaction of the editorial agents in a timely manner. I did not see the reviewers' comments and the journal stole not only my time but also at least two other scholars.
Motivation:
Despite relatively positive reviews, the manuscript was rejected outright. The editor claimed to have read the manuscript, but showed no signs of having knowledge of its content in the decision letter. She also did not respond to further inquiries and instead had an editorial assistant sending me an unintelligible e-mail. A further problem was that there was a potential conflict of interest with one of the reviewers coming from my department.
Motivation:
Initial checking and decision (immediate rejection or proceed external revision) of a manuscript needs 2 or 3 weeks, maybe because of quite a few manuscripts submitted to this journal. My another manuscript is now under review in this journal and has passed 75 days. Although editorial policy apparently shows that a reviewer is required to finish review in 2 weeks, I am not sure why such a long review duration is needed.
Motivation:
Extremely long process to assign the paper to the reviewers . Reviewers and editor were expert in the field and almost every suggestion improved the overall quality if the paper.
Motivation:
The recommendation letter provided to us offered very little insight on how exactly the manuscript was inappropriate for this particular journal, considering similar studies have been published in it before. Thus, we were left more confused than edified by the experience. Additionally, the editor recommended publication in a journal that they manage; a journal that ranks quite poorly and not to the level of JAD. We were a tad offended by this and didn’t appreciate it.
However, we did appreciate that the journal took only a week to reject such that we would move onto another.
However, we did appreciate that the journal took only a week to reject such that we would move onto another.
Motivation:
The journal is fake journal figuratively. The editors do not bother to read the comments from their own journal Science. After 2 months and many communications ,they remember there is manuscript left in their folder and then, they copy-paste same email they have already sent to 99% of people. In fact, there is not much to say except ,the system is true dictatorships; no communication way is open nor any one will answer to your emails. This is true fake science journal which will publish the friends of editors- It is waste of time to bother nor in long-term really does matter - true science will stand after 40-70 years and does not need label or big names.
Motivation:
The journal editor noted that the journal was short-staffed, which resulted in the long processing time.
Motivation:
Reviews were constructive and thorough. Resubmission to acceptance was very fast.