Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial office was very fast and the reviewers were helpful. I was unexpectedly good.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.7 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
6 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: After about 2 months evaluation, the manuscript was sent to 6 reviewers, 3 of them agreed that this work is of great importance and should be published with some revision. 1 of them required a major revision. 2 of them strongly disagree considering the novelty. After resubmitting the revision, the editor sent it to the 3 of them. And the reviewers agreed that the mentioned questions were all solved, but still strongly disagree considering the novelty. The two reviewers hold a strong prejudice on our work at the very beginning, which means no matter what we do is useless. I don't think that making the final decision only based on these 2 reviewers are reasonable. I just feel very disappointed.
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: One month after submission the journal status was still "Submitted to Journal", so I asked about the progress on the submission. After further two weeks I received the rejection.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The Editorial Advisory Board desk rejected the paper, informing us it was not suitable for publication in the journal because it did not present a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. The paper would not merit publication in a leading journal like Research Policy.
7.6 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very smooth and the reviewers really contributed to the improvement of the paper. The only criticism I have is that in the second round of revisions, one reviewer criticized an addition that the other reviewer asked. So the editor could have intervened in this case to settle the situation before getting the reviews back to the authors. Other than that, I really appreciated the review process and the quality of the reviews.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast!
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The age of my population is too young to be adolescents
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.3 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers raised minor issues that we addressed in the first round. The editor didn't give a clear accept/reject response even after we insisted. They said our article may be better for another JMIR journal without mentioning any specific concern why. The whole experience with JMIR was very unusual compared to other journals.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: the editors were not able to perceive the importance of the work
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast and courteous response, somewhat constructive, a positive experience despite the desk rejection.
n/a
n/a
94 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I find it unacceptable that an editor sits on a paper for 13.4 weeks before desk rejecting it. This is a waste of valuable time for hard working authors. I will probably no longer target Land Use Policy.
2.6 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
144 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Only 2 reviewers gave comment and one of them with one scentence comment which is not enough.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews were obviously faulty as they neglected the common knowledge in the field. The second review was just one sentence. This is but a joke.
18.7 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
5.9 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
4.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: A waste of time. The editorial team sent me back the article twice asking me to fix some time-consuming useless details and to provide a PRISMA document filled. I spent few days working on these tasks, and then the article got an immediate desk-rejection. Time wasted.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Educational Research Review. I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal and we must therefore reject it. I am sorry to disappoint you with this decision and hope that you will be able to successfully submit your manuscript elsewhere. If you want to find an alternative, you can use our Journal Finder to search for other journals that could be better suited for publishing your manuscript.
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The journal maintained reasonable time for handling the paper. The reviews were professional and constructive. The editor suggested some corrections to improve the quality of the paper.
25.4 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Rejected
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: We had four reviewers. All of them thought the article was interesting and methodologically good. Two reviewers did mild revisions, one was very thorough, and the last did not try understanding the manuscript. It was too molecular for the journal.
10.1 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers were nice and knowledgble but a bit slow. 10 weeks for first round, 5 weeks for second.
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2.7 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
10.0 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscripts submitted for publication are critically evaluated by the Editorial Board as to their scientific importance in the area of research covered. Your manuscript was assessed and was not considered to be of sufficient priority for publication in Journal of Dentistry. I realise that such decisions are difficult but the Journal receives considerably more manuscripts than we have room to publish, so competition for space in the journal is intense.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Manuscripts submitted for publication are critically evaluated by the Editorial Board as to their scientific importance in the area of research covered. Your manuscript was assessed and was not considered to be of sufficient priority for publication in Journal of Dentistry. I realise that such decisions are difficult but the Journal receives considerably more manuscripts than we have room to publish, so competition for space in the journal is intense.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editor took 3-4 weeks of initial decision time before sending it to reviewers, which is a bit slow. While the Reviewers were fair, given this journal's high reputation I would have expected at least 3 reports to begin with, as well as a higher report quality than I've experienced elsewhere (which was not really the case).
14.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
3.3 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Accepted
4.0 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Accepted
Motivation: After "Decision B: (minor revision)" in JMIR during 2nd review round, our manuscript was neglected by the journal. In the end, it was only accepted after sending multiple emails and agreeing to transfer our submission to a sister journal without IF.
15.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
5
Accepted