Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
At least the decision was fast.
Motivation:
The first round of review was too slow.
I'll never submit my manuscript to this journal.
I'll never submit my manuscript to this journal.
Motivation:
Editor was very responsive and peer review comments where appropriate and on point.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "xxxxx" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by three editorial board members who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell, and initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell, and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time. We apologize for the delay in rendering a decision on your manuscript.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxxxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled 'xxxxxx'. Having considered it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues, I am sorry to say that we are not able to consider it for publication in Genome Biology.
As you may know, at Genome Biology we do consider it important that new findings in the submitted work represent a significant advance over previous studies and are of interest to a wide readership of biologists. I should also explain that we receive many more manuscripts than we can publish and our threshold for certain types of studies is raised gradually as specific fields evolve. Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists. We would be looking for more significant follow-up.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled 'xxxxxx'. Having considered it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues, I am sorry to say that we are not able to consider it for publication in Genome Biology.
As you may know, at Genome Biology we do consider it important that new findings in the submitted work represent a significant advance over previous studies and are of interest to a wide readership of biologists. I should also explain that we receive many more manuscripts than we can publish and our threshold for certain types of studies is raised gradually as specific fields evolve. Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists. We would be looking for more significant follow-up.
Motivation:
The quality of reviews are excellent, which helps improve our paper enormously, but the whole process is too slow and long.
23.4 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Two reviewers made some constructive suggestions, but the editors added several remarks that went far beyond the reviewers request (which kind of felt strange as their reviews were not double blinded). The criticism was helpful, yet, could also have been addressed in another revision.
The journal was rather slow in handling the manuscript; decisions about the initial submission and the revision were only sent out when more than four months have passed and I asked about the status
The journal was rather slow in handling the manuscript; decisions about the initial submission and the revision were only sent out when more than four months have passed and I asked about the status
Motivation:
The review process is very slow in comparison with other open access journals
Motivation:
Handling was completely unethical. Writing that a work has 'not suitable level of rigour' without a single example of a mathematical errors/imprecision is nonsense. It prevents even resubmission to another journal: most likely, the same people are going to handle the work and think: 'oh, that is the same erroneous work, not even corrected', which would lead to another rejection without examination. Since this case concerns violation of basic scientific principles, it requires full transparency; thus a complete correspondence with the journal has been made public: https://users.mccme.ru/mskopenkov/other/lmp.html
Motivation:
I used to submit my most important works to NONLINEAR DYNAMICS, and a section as open problems is often supplied for readers' extensive guidance in this field. NONLINEAR DYNAMICS published many imporant papers about neurodynamics and they are helpful for readers. Most of them are highly cited and welcome to us. Most of the reviewers are active and the AEs are kind with supplying helpful additive suggestions.
Motivation:
Crazy review process. We got: major revision / major revision / minor revision / it can be accepted after quick fix-ups / REJECTED.
We were very close to the acceptance, and on the penultimate email from the editor Edward Ciaccio we received an email with the following text:
> Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed, and we would be happy to publish it,
> provided that it is revised in accordance with the enclosed reviewers' comments.
The comments were about the improvement of the English grammar of the article. We asked a colleague to perform an English proof-reading and addressed all the changes. Then the editor decided to reject the paper in the end because of few sentences with English mistakes.
I will never submit an article to this journal ever again.
We were very close to the acceptance, and on the penultimate email from the editor Edward Ciaccio we received an email with the following text:
> Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed, and we would be happy to publish it,
> provided that it is revised in accordance with the enclosed reviewers' comments.
The comments were about the improvement of the English grammar of the article. We asked a colleague to perform an English proof-reading and addressed all the changes. Then the editor decided to reject the paper in the end because of few sentences with English mistakes.
I will never submit an article to this journal ever again.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided great insights in shaping the manuscript to be stronger. The comments were relevant to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. The swift and smooth review process was impressive.
Motivation:
The reviewer reveals his/her lack of familiarity with the subject and knowledge about the technique with the comments s/he has made within the report. I would expect a quality review from a journal that old.
Motivation:
Rejected due to not fitting the journal. We would have preferred a desk reject in that case.
Motivation:
The one review took rather long (6.5 months) but with a direct acception, we did not care much at the end.
Motivation:
Some of the Reviewers were a little slow, but otherwise the experience was fine
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript which was based on nanocomposites, which is well within the journal's scope. don't know why it was rejected. At the same time there was an article published in the same journal, it had several typos , the title included. I appealed to the editor, but there was no response. if the journal is able to publish such articles with typos I doubt the quality of Elsevier. much more shocking was that the typo ridden article had several citations
Motivation:
The reviewing process was too long; it took many months to receive the first round of comments by the reviewers. Fortunately, the comments and suggestions were very useful and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The journal took an extremely long time (almost two months) to reject the manuscript without sending it to review. One month after submission, I inquired about the delay and I was told that the paper had been "accidentally held in an initial staff check", but was now with the editors. Three weeks after that, I had still not received a response, and I inquired again. I was told by an editorial assistant that the editor was not responding to her emails, and that she would try again. I received the decision exactly the day after that, in a completely generic email with no feedback (or apologies) whatsoever. Desk rejections are OK, but it is only fair to expect that they sould be quick. Taking two months for this is shockingly disrespectful to authors' work.
Motivation:
My experience with this Journal was horrible. It took them almost 2 months to find an editor to handle my paper and 2 more months to invited reviewers that did not accept to review the paper. I would strongly suggest not submit to this Journal if you value your time and research.
Motivation:
This article received a revise and resubmit the first time around. While we did not necessarily agree with all the comments, we extensively rewrote the article, added new variables, and re-ran the analysis, and gave a detailed account of all of this. This was several weeks work. We then resubmitted the article. Instead of sending it back to the original referees, we instead received a new bunch of referee reports from different reviewers, which did not always agree with the previous reviewers, and we were again given the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We are not clear that there is an end to this process. Presumably we could spend another couple of/few weeks revising this article, only to have the process repeated. This is a mid-range journal and is simply not worth the effort to do this. We have already expended 6 months on this. So we will send it to another journal.
Motivation:
I had some concerns about reviewer 2 and the editor helped me and answered my questions very fast.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Postharvest Biology and Technology.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.