Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They offered a transfer to the sister open-access journal Advanced Engineering Materials.
Motivation:
Editor was unable to find reviewers and so it wasn't until 4 months later that we received news of the rejection. One of the reviews was very brief and contained factual errors.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 57.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After almost two months of inactivity from the Editor, we decided to withdraw the manuscript. After two requests for information about the status of the manuscript, the Editor was contacted by the Journal Manager, but nothing happened.
Motivation:
Although referee reports were adequate, time taken to review was on the excessive side compared to its contents.
Motivation:
We have had a desk rejection after 5 months! No reason was given, excepting they are 'receiving many papers'. Totally regrettable. This is not a serious journal.
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast, and comments reviewers were valued in the improved manuscript
Motivation:
10 months for one (1) peer review report with the offer to revise and re-submit. Withdrawn because of the painfully slow process.
Motivation:
The review was delayed by half of the year just because one of the reviewers did not respond. The editors did not try to invite a new reviewer and informed us of this situation after four months.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
Motivation:
The manuscript took almost a month to be processed due to it being un-submitted for formatting "issues" that are not laid out in the submission guidelines. The review quality was exceptionally poor with one reviewer making methodological comments without knowing anything about quantitative methods. Another reviewer did not read past page 12.
Motivation:
A bit slow process, but reasonable critique from reviewers.
Motivation:
Fast process. Editor was competent and constructive.
Motivation:
This was a data visualization so the process was slightly different than a traditional research article submission. It appeared to be reviewed by members of the editorial board rather than external reviewers. The editors apologized for the delays in the initial review by explaining that they had to wait until the next committee meeting. The topic of my data visualization was very "out there" (it had been desk rejected by a previous journal) so I was pleasantly surprised when the editors gave it the green light. Overall it was a good experience. I will definitely be submitting here again in the future.
Motivation:
Prompt and fair review process all around. Would submit here again.
Motivation:
The initial peer review process was a bit lengthy, but the reviewers' comments were mostly reasonable. Our paper was a minor revision, but it also took a little longer for the acceptance decision after resubmission. After acceptance, the process to publication was very smooth.
Motivation:
The paper was handled properly without much delay. I received three reviewer reports; they helped me improve the work towards final acceptance. The production process was smooth and fast.
Motivation:
Thorough review reports and a very fair and fast handling time.
Motivation:
The referees' comments were useful to improve the overall flow/readability of the manuscript. However, for the second revision, one referee asked to have an experiment done with human serum, instead of bovine serum -- which was used for the majority of our experiments. While the new data supported our initial findings, it was placed in the supplementary information file.
Motivation:
Long duration of initial round of review was due to circumstances outside the journal's control. Editors and journal staff were communicative through all aspects. One of the better experiences I've had with receiving critical comments that were helpful without being demeaning.
Motivation:
Over-all process had a good turnaround (reviews, editorial decisions, proofs, final publication). Manuscript status bar was transparent which was very helpful to know at what stage your manuscript is at. Reviews were very fair and helpful.
Motivation:
The editors are very responsive if there are any questions during the process.
The reviewing process, also the publication process are too long.
The reviewing process, also the publication process are too long.
Motivation:
Smooth process. Good reviews, helpful for improvement of the manuscript
Motivation:
Pretty normal review, not superfast, but the editor found useful reviewers that helped sharpen the focus of the paper. We were surprised that the revised manuscript was sent out again, though, as there were no "difficult" revisions.
Motivation:
Reviewers' feedback was detailed and helpful. Although I disagreed with key parts of the feedback (inevitable!), overall I agree the decision to reject was well-considered. Editor's comments were considered and kind. Turn around time was faster than expected, as I had not released that it had been sent to reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process was good though took a bit of time, fair assessment after initial review and was given the opportunity to incorporate changes while some may have chosen to reject. Saw the value in the paper and provided opportunity to improve.