Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This is, by far, the worst handled/managed journal that I know. A complete mess should be expected when submitting a paper. No clear guidelines for authors or adequate point of contact; for instance, before accepting my article for review, an editorial assistant insisted on modifying it five times based only on the resolution and pixels of the graphics used. Unresponsive staff and extremely slow editorial process. There are many other journals that will always treat authors and submissions in a more respectful manner. After this long delay, I submitted my paper to a Q2 journal and was immediately accepted.
Motivation:
The review and proofing procedures were quick and effective. Although this is not stated explicitly on their website, the journal allows authors to distribute the final version of the paper freely.
Motivation:
This journal did a very detailed and fair judgment, and their response time was very reasonable.
Motivation:
Submitting to the BMJ requires somewhat more effort than elsewhere. E.g. if you provide forest plots you also have to send the data etc. Rejection rate is 94%.
Motivation:
Excellent journal for presentation of clinical cases and surgical technique.
Motivation:
There was one review that was flawed and the reviewer did not read the article thoroughly and one review that was only a few sentences. There were no issues that could not be resolved with very minor edits. The special issue editor said that the content did not fit the special issue even though we initial reached out and confirmed that the topic was of interest to the special issue editors. We wasted 7 months for no reason.
Motivation:
Good journaL. jhgd is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). jhgd takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication.
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and fairly timely. The quality of the reviews was so-so. Overall, I would consider submitting to this journal again and recommend it to others.
Motivation:
The revision process went very smooth and the editors were eager to accept our request for the extension. It was however reasonable due to the number of requested changes and some problems related to pandemics which impeded our accessibility.
The reviewers were insightful and raised many important questions that directed us in improving the paper. The reviewers were able to
- demonstrate they know the topic from a psychological and medical perspective
- indicate several formal/technical inconsistencies (some of them could have been annoying and therefore we are thankful for their patience and understanding)
- go through our database and make useful suggestions on data interpretation
- encourage us to give more information on the procedure (the manuscript is more transparent)
We slightly disagreed with a few suggestions but, on the whole, their work is much appreciated.
The reviewers were insightful and raised many important questions that directed us in improving the paper. The reviewers were able to
- demonstrate they know the topic from a psychological and medical perspective
- indicate several formal/technical inconsistencies (some of them could have been annoying and therefore we are thankful for their patience and understanding)
- go through our database and make useful suggestions on data interpretation
- encourage us to give more information on the procedure (the manuscript is more transparent)
We slightly disagreed with a few suggestions but, on the whole, their work is much appreciated.
Motivation:
Very easygoing. Directly in touch with non-anonymus reviewer, everything could be directly discussed.
Motivation:
Without trying to sound bitter that the paper was desk rejected (which of course can happen), my impression is that Nature Neuroscience is very, very slow relative to comparable journals (like Neuron, for example).
Motivation:
Spent 70+ days in review with a desk reject stating that manuscript was not a fit for the journal despite similar work in the journal. No reviews and no further justification. Not submitting to this journal again.
Motivation:
I am an experienced researcher with more than 30 peer-reviewed papers published in Q1 journals and more than 12 years of research experience. This has been the worst experience ever in my career in a review process. The quality of 2 of the 3 review reports was absolutely dreadful and the editorial team was completely unable to make their own judgement. I would neve submit a paper to Nature Communications again and I would never recommend anyone to do so. It has been a total waste of time and a very frustrating experience.
Motivation:
The review was fast in my opinion, regarding the needs to publish COVID-19 related articles
Motivation:
All the reviewers comments were really helpful and justified. Overall I am very satisfied about the review process and the outcome.
Motivation:
The review is good, but it's quite too long time, however the overall comments were good.
Motivation:
The chief editor changed during the review process and there was a delay in making editorial decision, but the paper was finally accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively rapid. Two positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable.
Motivation:
The editorial process could be faster than this. The handling editor rendered their decision a month after when all external review reports were submitted. The overall quality of the external review reports was fair.
Motivation:
This journel rejected my paper without sending it to reviewer. However, the editor recommended that I submit the manuscript to a different section that would fit better to my topic. This recommendation was very helpful and the manuscript was accepted in this new section.
Motivation:
Had a nice review process with Blood. Smooth submission and relatively fast turnaround seeing as it was sent to two external reviewers. While a rejection is fine, some of the issues they found were actually addressed in the paper & stemmed from the reviewers simply skimming the paper. A bit frustrating but understandable given high impact journals are certainly swamped with submissions. I would have preferred a longer wait to allow the reviewers time to actually thoroughly read and understand the article.
Motivation:
- High quality of review feedback, it contributed to improve significantly the manuscript
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
- Clear information and guidelines for authors
- Initial review phase's time was appropriate, review phase after minor revisions was comparatively long
- Quick response by support team when reaching out via e-mail
- Submission platform was perfectly
Motivation:
After correcting some minor points in the 1st round, the manuscript was surprisingly sent out for review and took quite some time to get the decision.
Motivation:
Really impressed by the quick evaluation by a senior editor and main editor where it was recommended as a full manuscript to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Really impressed by the quick evaluation by a senior editor and main editor where it was recommended as a full manuscript to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.