Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Due to a significant increase in paper submissions competing for space in the Journal of Dental Research, we have made the editorial decision to limit reports to those that fall into the following categories: exceptionally novel, within the broad scope of the Journal, and of high priority interest to researchers in the fields relevant to oral, dental and craniofacial research.
Motivation:
We are regretfully unable to process your submission because your manuscript does not fall within the scope of this publication.
Motivation:
They only sent out the manuscript to "one" reviewer. The reviewer misinterpreted major parts of our work. They made false assumptions on our problem formulation even when we had explicitly stated all the details both in text and in figures. The fact that they made the decision on just one review is extremely unprofessional.
Motivation:
Handling was prompt and reviewers were fair. The reviews were mostly positive, which the editor acknowledged, but after discussion among all Lancet editors they decided it did not fit within the scope of the journal because it was not yet immediately clinically applicable. This felt like a decision that could have been made before sending it out for review.
Immediately accepted after 21.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Took a bit of time for the reviewers' comments to arrive but I felt the editor handled our manuscript very professionally.
Motivation:
Rejection letter was courteous and the Editor showed knowledge of the article, but it was cryptic and not very helpful. Editorial system could have been more prompt at getting the paper to the Editor.
Motivation:
Very professional, very fast turnaround time. I was very impressed.
Motivation:
This was the worst submission I have ever had. This is unbearable for a PhD student to waste 22 month for such an irregular journal. ِDuring this time, the editor was saying that he needs 1 additional review to make the decision.
Motivation:
Editor judged that the reviewers "overall enthusiasm was not sufficient to allow further consideration"
Motivation:
They're said:
The associate editor handling the review suggests submitting it to a more specialized journal. This suggestion has been echoed by the fact that there are very few recent Neurocomputing papers in the references.
They expect my paper had references to their journal. I think this expectation is not rational nor moral.
The associate editor handling the review suggests submitting it to a more specialized journal. This suggestion has been echoed by the fact that there are very few recent Neurocomputing papers in the references.
They expect my paper had references to their journal. I think this expectation is not rational nor moral.
Motivation:
it was reviewed by an AE, but was rejected
Motivation:
quick desk rejection
Motivation:
Clear evidence of an editorial review, lack of space as the main reason, plus a sentence of feedback (which is more than what we get from most desk rejections)
Motivation:
Surprisingly extensive feedback on the reason for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
suggested a different journal
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and gave us a fair chance to answer all of the critiques. She seemed very committed to helping us improve the quality of our manuscript. The handling process was rather quick. A couple of times the submission system rejected our files due to technical checks that felt arbitrary and were not explained well by the error notification, but otherwise all was good journal-wise.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
Motivation:
One referee report was extremely short, and the overall process took relatively long.
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
The immediate decision was fast without wasting time.
Motivation:
Excellent comments on the manuscript have been given by the associated editor.
Motivation:
Firstly, very long review time that is inconsistent with the advertised first decisitime. Secondly, from the two reviews one was accept after revisions while praising the work. The second review was reject by a reviewer unfamiliar with the analytical method who only argued that he doesnsee audience interest! The editor with no third review or any explanation rejected too. Overall such a waste of time. It used to be a great journal a few years ago. By the way manuscript accepted in a higher if journal later. Save your 2 month time and send to another journal