Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first decision time was relatively long. However the journal is still good.
Motivation:
After the first review, one of the reviewer asked for minor revision, but make requests impossible to fulfill.
More than two month were needed to have a decision on the revised version.
More than two month were needed to have a decision on the revised version.
Motivation:
Manuscript was desk-rejected without any further comment, which is unfortunate because it would have been good to at least know whether the problem was the fit, the breadth of the paper, or something else. After all (also taking experiences with other submissions), it appears to be a lottery on whether a paper gets a chance at the journal.
Motivation:
The waiting time for the reviews was relatively long (4 months). While we received helpful feedback from the reviewers and most of their comments were addressable, the editor decided to reject our ms. The main justification for this decision was too high N of submissions per year (over 600) to this journal.
In this spirit, to help the editor to limit the N of submissions, my suggestion would be to consider another journal for your ms. Another reason for NOT submitting to the CBSN is a submission fee of $50! A quick calculation: 600 x $50 = $30k annual income for the journal based on such submission fee (sic!)
In this spirit, to help the editor to limit the N of submissions, my suggestion would be to consider another journal for your ms. Another reason for NOT submitting to the CBSN is a submission fee of $50! A quick calculation: 600 x $50 = $30k annual income for the journal based on such submission fee (sic!)
Motivation:
Half a year after the initial submission, the editor notified me that he had decided to reject the paper based on the reviewers' comments. However, the editor did not provide me with any insight into the reviewers' comments, despite my request that they be forwarded to me.
In this way, it appears that the editorial board of Scientia Iranica Journal is only using the reviewers' efforts to support the journal's decision-making process rather than supporting the scientific community growth and exchange of knowledge (that reviewer comments should contribute to in the first place).
As a result of this unusual procedure, I will no longer be submitting or possibly writing reviews for this journal.
In this way, it appears that the editorial board of Scientia Iranica Journal is only using the reviewers' efforts to support the journal's decision-making process rather than supporting the scientific community growth and exchange of knowledge (that reviewer comments should contribute to in the first place).
As a result of this unusual procedure, I will no longer be submitting or possibly writing reviews for this journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected without being sent out, but the editorial process is quick.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, negative ratings are not possible here. But I feel this Journal deserves a minus one. The quality of peer reviews was by far the worst I have ever experienced in my career (I started writing journal papers in 2010 and I am writing this in 2022).
First, the reviewers reports were not helpful at all. They did not contain any criticism on either methodological aspects of the work nor on the reported results. The only message conveyed to us was that the text was difficult to understand as it was too scientific. We submitted the manuscript 'as is' to a more appropriate journal on the same day we got the decision letter.
About the reviewers.
Reviewer #1 complained on how different the manuscript was from the way they usually write papers. It contained citations "in a lump form". The sentences were not phrased to his liking. There was no overview of the field in general (why should there be one? this was not a review paper). I find it hilarious that they decided to focus on language since clearly it was not a native speaker. The edits they suggested were bogus. Further, Reviewer #1 admitted they were not able to follow the derivation of the main theoretical arguments. Then, they suggested that the difference in the samples considered in this work was not 'sufficiently clear'. Although the paper focused on a modification of a data treatment procedure for MEASUREMENTS, the Reviewer thought it would not be suitable for the Journal because it was too 'theoretical'. Well, it just happens that these measurements involve theory -- we are not able to change that, sorry! And these complains appeared even though three sets of experimental samples were measured and analysed with the said model, plus the experiment was explained in sufficient detail.
Then, Reviewer #2 wrote his witty comments, which misinterpreted the whole text and made us look like idiots who are not capable of understanding simple things. We believe that Reviewer #2 misinformed the Editor (that was likely a deliberate move to prevent our publication), making him believe that a Figure contained poor match between the cross-verified methods, although any person with a clear vision would be able to see the match was excellent. Based on that conclusion, Reviewer #2 proceeded to say our models were not sound as they were numerical and depended on grid partitioning, and that we had taken arbitrary parameters to test them.
The decision was communicated by an 'Editor' who did not have an academic degree, said to be acting 'on behalf' of the Editor-in-Chief.
I strongly advise anyone reading this AGAINST sending to this Journal. It is not even in Q1 and the Editors and the Reviewers are unprofessional -- so don't even bother.
First, the reviewers reports were not helpful at all. They did not contain any criticism on either methodological aspects of the work nor on the reported results. The only message conveyed to us was that the text was difficult to understand as it was too scientific. We submitted the manuscript 'as is' to a more appropriate journal on the same day we got the decision letter.
About the reviewers.
Reviewer #1 complained on how different the manuscript was from the way they usually write papers. It contained citations "in a lump form". The sentences were not phrased to his liking. There was no overview of the field in general (why should there be one? this was not a review paper). I find it hilarious that they decided to focus on language since clearly it was not a native speaker. The edits they suggested were bogus. Further, Reviewer #1 admitted they were not able to follow the derivation of the main theoretical arguments. Then, they suggested that the difference in the samples considered in this work was not 'sufficiently clear'. Although the paper focused on a modification of a data treatment procedure for MEASUREMENTS, the Reviewer thought it would not be suitable for the Journal because it was too 'theoretical'. Well, it just happens that these measurements involve theory -- we are not able to change that, sorry! And these complains appeared even though three sets of experimental samples were measured and analysed with the said model, plus the experiment was explained in sufficient detail.
Then, Reviewer #2 wrote his witty comments, which misinterpreted the whole text and made us look like idiots who are not capable of understanding simple things. We believe that Reviewer #2 misinformed the Editor (that was likely a deliberate move to prevent our publication), making him believe that a Figure contained poor match between the cross-verified methods, although any person with a clear vision would be able to see the match was excellent. Based on that conclusion, Reviewer #2 proceeded to say our models were not sound as they were numerical and depended on grid partitioning, and that we had taken arbitrary parameters to test them.
The decision was communicated by an 'Editor' who did not have an academic degree, said to be acting 'on behalf' of the Editor-in-Chief.
I strongly advise anyone reading this AGAINST sending to this Journal. It is not even in Q1 and the Editors and the Reviewers are unprofessional -- so don't even bother.
Motivation:
Took a long time. The first round of review was helpful, I struggled to understand what the editors were looking for in the second two rounds (they criticised some literature search terms, which was fair but not something that I could do anything about at that stage). They eventually accepted it.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to lack of novelty. After a long period under review, the corrisponding author decided to e-mail the editor for news about the manuscript state, and recevied no answer. They oly received answer after directly contacting Elsevier.
Motivation:
Even though they rejected my article, the editor pointed out very important problem in my article that improved the quality of the article by checking and fixing them.
The reviewing time was about a month, which was very appropriate.
The reviewing time was about a month, which was very appropriate.
Motivation:
The status of the manuscript in the system has changed to "Under Review" after 3 months, which is acceptable. I have contacted the editor after 6-7 months, at which point it turned out, that no reviewer has accepted their invitation. The editor encouraged me to wait longer though, and asked for more reviewer candidates. The list has been promptly provided to the editor. The editor has managed to secure a reviewer only 10 months after the initial submission. After suggesting that I wait even longer, the editor has decided to withdraw the manuscript from consideration for publication after almost 65 weeks since the initial submission. The combination of misleading status reports ("under review", when in reality the manuscript is with the editor), lack of communication about the delays in the review, horrible editorial work (not being able to secure a single report after such a long time) makes this literally the worst publishing experience in career. I simply lost 65 weeks of my time without getting any closer to a publication.
Motivation:
Very slow review process/timeline… would not submit here again. Transfer offer is nice.
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected based solely in one reviewer comments'. The comments of the single reviewer do not justify rejection, as they are overall very superficial and not very critical.
Motivation:
A very quick desk rejection
Motivation:
They kept my paper in the review process for 9 months while the only review of my paper was done four months before. If they were going to reject the article, they should have rejected it four months ago and not wasted my time.
The review of the article was limited to a few writing problems and it was clear that the reviewer was not very familiar with the topic of the article.
The review of the article was limited to a few writing problems and it was clear that the reviewer was not very familiar with the topic of the article.
Motivation:
The main complaints for this submission is the speed of decision making relative to the end result, i.e. the number and quality of the reviews. While the final decision took only a bit longer than the then reported average in the journal (about 60 days at the time of submission), the fact that the result was only one review with feedback that implying only a shallow and quick reading of the manuscript was a disappointment.
While never communicated in such a way by the editor, there seemed to be trouble finding external reviewers as implicated by the status of the manuscript in the Editorial Manager system, which changed between "under review" and "appointing reviewers" several times during the process.
While the reviewer comments demonstrated bad reading of the manuscript (commenting on things that were quite thoroughly described within the text) and in the end had nothing critical to say about the methods or the results themselves, some of the points they made about textual clarity were on point. With changes made based on these comments, the manuscript was later accepted and published in a same caliber specialist journal with minor revisions, so even if frustrating, the revision process was not totally in vain.
While never communicated in such a way by the editor, there seemed to be trouble finding external reviewers as implicated by the status of the manuscript in the Editorial Manager system, which changed between "under review" and "appointing reviewers" several times during the process.
While the reviewer comments demonstrated bad reading of the manuscript (commenting on things that were quite thoroughly described within the text) and in the end had nothing critical to say about the methods or the results themselves, some of the points they made about textual clarity were on point. With changes made based on these comments, the manuscript was later accepted and published in a same caliber specialist journal with minor revisions, so even if frustrating, the revision process was not totally in vain.
Motivation:
After almost 5 weeks of the article status being "with editor", I wrote a polite question to the editor, asking what the current progress is. Within the same day, I got a response that after an "initial evaluation" the article was found not fit for the journal. I feel that initial evaluation should not take five weeks and that the editor just did not bother to look for external reviewers and wanted the paper off their hands.
Motivation:
I will suggest avoid submitting your manuscript to this journal, especially those time sensitive ones. The editor just "have the right" to ignore your submissions and issues desk rejections after 4 months. In my case, I sent inquiry emails to them around 8 weeks and received automated replies. However, 8 more weeks waiting gave me an "immediate" rejection with a one-sentence email saying "not a good fit". Well, I guess those editors must be super busy and I will try not to disturb in the future.
Motivation:
The initial review took unexpectedly and unreasonably long - it was almost 12 weeks. I understand the journal might have experienced difficulty finding reviewers but it is their job to sort things out. We could have moved on by quickly finding another outlet for our paper had the desk rejection been made in a more timely manner.
Motivation:
The submission was done by direct transfer from the journal science, which suggested to forward to science advances. Science took 2 weeks to make that decision. I also sent an email to science advances after 4 weeks asking updates because the status of the submission was stack to "under evaluation" state. Apparently after that i received the desk rejection after 20 more days. Unacceptable!
I quote "Your study on the [...] is beautiful, providing both invaluable new genomic data and illustrations of the value of work such as your group provides here to explore many issues in evolutionary genomics. I didn't find your focus on illustrating how such intensive genomic sampling improves our understanding of genome evolution to be a transfomatory message, [...] but the novelty and detail of your work is certainly a unique and important contribution to evolutionary genomics. Unfortunately, like many studies, though your study has much merit, competition at Science Advances in intense, and your study is not competitive with the many other submissions, so I have to decline your transfer. Sorry!"
I quote "Your study on the [...] is beautiful, providing both invaluable new genomic data and illustrations of the value of work such as your group provides here to explore many issues in evolutionary genomics. I didn't find your focus on illustrating how such intensive genomic sampling improves our understanding of genome evolution to be a transfomatory message, [...] but the novelty and detail of your work is certainly a unique and important contribution to evolutionary genomics. Unfortunately, like many studies, though your study has much merit, competition at Science Advances in intense, and your study is not competitive with the many other submissions, so I have to decline your transfer. Sorry!"
Motivation:
"The Editors concluded that this manuscript was more appropriate for a subspecialty journal."
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected after the second round of review. One reviewer was accepted but the second one is looking only at English. Elsevier journals have a problem in that their reviewers stick to language. Paper belongs to the compression of the image and the reviewer had no knowledge about the coding efficiency or coding complexity. Paper was written as a single author by me.
I am disappointed with the Elsevier journals.
I am disappointed with the Elsevier journals.
Motivation:
Initially, the editor wanted two reviewers. After the first contact after three months of review duration, the Researcher support wrote that they were waiting for one review report, which the reviewer should send in 2 weeks. After one month, I contacted the journal again and received the answer that the review report was 33 days late, and the support forwarded the query to the handling editor. This editor promptly sent the review report and, based on this report, rejected the manuscript.
After the advertisement of a review time and final decision time frame of 3.5 weeks, my expectations were higher than one review report after 18.6 weeks, on which, after two contacts with the support, the decision was made.
After the advertisement of a review time and final decision time frame of 3.5 weeks, my expectations were higher than one review report after 18.6 weeks, on which, after two contacts with the support, the decision was made.
Motivation:
Biased judgement on our adoption of theoretical lens and methodology. Other parts of the comments just consist of very generic challenges on research motivation (which we have justified the motivation quite well already). No recommendations were made for improving the manuscript.
And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.
And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.
Motivation:
The total time it took for the manuscript to be rejected without being sent for review was too long, in our opinion (1 month). However, the Editor, in the rejection letter, provided an objective explanation for this long wait. More importantly, in the rejection letter it was evident that the Editor had taken the time to read through our manuscript and had given it some thought before their final rejection, for which we were thankful.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
Motivation:
The editor "feels" that the English is not up to standard, but we used various grammar and language quality checks to evaluate our manuscript and it consistently got high evaluation scores. The editor did not point out specific language issues that significantly affect the readability of our manuscript and so the decision is not convincing at all. Definitely wouldn't recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The referees' comments were extensive, but led to substantial improvement of the manuscript. The editorial team handled the submission very professionally and provided useful feedback for addressing the referees' comments.
Motivation:
1. Fast review process (4weeks to the first decision)
2. The MS was reviewed by experts
3. Very detailed and, thus, challenging review
4. The reviewers opinion contributed a lot to improvement of our MS
My overall impression for this journal is very good. My manuscript was sent to experts in this field and undergone thorough review.
Since SSM-population health is an OA journal, APC must be paid. If it were not, I would like to submit more often.
2. The MS was reviewed by experts
3. Very detailed and, thus, challenging review
4. The reviewers opinion contributed a lot to improvement of our MS
My overall impression for this journal is very good. My manuscript was sent to experts in this field and undergone thorough review.
Since SSM-population health is an OA journal, APC must be paid. If it were not, I would like to submit more often.
Motivation:
The reviews were fair and comprehensive and seemed to be from experts in the field. I thought the process was a little slow and we sent at least one chasing email.