Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We received a rejection after the peer review. The process was quick and fast (<1 month). The review reports were detailed and I do appreciate the comments from the reviewer.
Motivation:
The editorial and peer-review process was quite long, and the status on the manuscript central was not updated to show the actual status of our paper at the different stages. This meant we spent a lot of time trying to get answers from the editor(s) about the paper, as we had not heard from them in months at one point.
Motivation:
(appropriately) transferred to a sister journal
Motivation:
I submitted my paper and waited more than 20 weeks (Average is 9 weeks). They said that they received the review from a reviewer, and need to wait two more. They sent to others reviewers again. There is no thing happen.
Motivation:
Dr. Cassidento, the editor-in-chief of AAG, is very responsive and professional. Prof. Ling Bian rejected the manuscript as being out of their scope. AAG is very good.
Motivation:
Fairly quick initial screening.
Motivation:
The review of the revised manuscript was very long because one of the reviewers in the first round "disappeared." The editor had to find another peer which proved to be very problematic during the COVID period. Despite all these problems, the editor was very helpful and answered the questions quickly.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing and review time. Poor submission experience with AJOG.
Motivation:
The review process was quite rapid, however one of the referees was not really competent.
Motivation:
Slower than anticipated for review process. Reviews very brief.
Motivation:
The editor gave me valuable feedback and comments for the first half of the MS. She encouraged me to re-send it again if I wished to make substantial improvements: In several places more information was needed. And the results did not reflect what would be reported in the analytical approach chosen.
46.1 weeks
46.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
This Journal has worst review system. The handling time is too long. The reviewers and editors are not helpful at all.
Motivation:
The whole review process was professional. The comments of the referees are helpful.
Motivation:
as always, rejected without review.
Motivation:
Our experience with the journal was quite positive. Everyone from the editorial office to the reviewers was quite good. We could not submit the manuscript on time during the first round of revision, and editors were quite ok in providing us additional time as the article required significant revisions.
Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
As the status of my manuscript has remained unchanged, I asked 62 days after submission if there has been any further progress on my submission. I just received a standard answer that my manuscript is currently undergoing editorial assessment. Finally, I got a desk rejection after 122 days. I am frustrated of waiting, since I am currently completing a PhD, I am depended on a quick review.
Motivation:
Few weeks after the submission, I was informed that the paper was sent to a referee. But more than one year later, I received the decision of rejection with no referee's report. Afterward, several other colleagues told me that they have experienced the same long-time-rejection.
Motivation:
The whole review process was professional and the referees' comments were helpful.
Motivation:
One reviewer was very supportive, one was utterly dismissive but did not seem to have done more than skim the manuscript. That was enough to sink the paper.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were practical and helpful. Overall, the review process improved the manuscript significantly and was very straightforward.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, relatively fast.
Motivation:
it was desk rejected
Motivation:
The editor took very long to process the review and send us the editorial decision, which added to the time it took for this paper to be published.
Motivation:
I received three review reports from two reviewers in total. Each taking about 4 weeks after my revision was submitted. My manuscript has improved.
Motivation:
thanks, reviewers and editors were polite
Motivation:
The journal is in moderate quality range with 2.5 Citescore. Article were handled by only two reviewers in which one accepted with mild suggestions and other rejected with detailed error points which I am also agree in some part but most part can be easily corrected. I got rejection 31st of December around 8 weeks later of initial submission, and editor chose the reject while one accepted and one rejected. I would like to wait less time for this outcome or I would send a third reviewer for final conclusion. As it is said, Geography is fate. I believe this is the reason of not getting much interest or goodwill of your hardworking.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Very attentive and careful editors, and excellent communication with them. They keep the standards high, e.g. it is not possible to submit a paper without sharing data and code. The reviews were pretty good too, though I only wish the process was slightly faster for a submission that ended up being rejected. Overall, pretty good experience and despite the rejection, the experience will help improve the paper to be submitted elsewhere.
Motivation:
You will see that, while the reviewers find your work of interest, they raise substantive concerns that cast doubt on the advance your findings represent over earlier work and the strength of the novel conclusions that can be drawn at this stage. Unfortunately, these reservations are sufficiently important to preclude publication of this study in Nature Communications.
Motivation:
The review process was particularly slow (it was a special issue for the journal) and it was nearly impossible to contact the person in charge of our paper. The user interface is also quite unfriendly and the important emails are exclusively send to the corresponding author without cc to other authors involved (which can cause issues and further delays if the corresponding author is sick or absent).
On the positive side, we received high quality reviews that truly helped improving the scientific and editorial quality of the work.
On the positive side, we received high quality reviews that truly helped improving the scientific and editorial quality of the work.