All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Not recommended. Manuscript sent out to different reviewers multiple times; extensive periods of time "awaiting Editor decision"... 1.5 years later and still waiting.

Motivation: Both reviewers acknowledged the novelty and importance of the work but recognized some problems with methodology. If the editor was knowledgeable enough in the subject area, they would have been able to make a much better decision as the methodological problems were contrived and easily remedied by re-writing for clarity.

Motivation: Our manuscript was rejected by the associate editor because we were falsely accused of being arrogant and ignorant. The first reviewer who made these accusations also portrayed himself/herself as an expert, but sentence after sentence in the review was false and can be proven false. The review was set up to make us look as if we were attacking the scientific community, and the associate editor bought into it. So disturbing!

Motivation: To justify the manuscript's rejection (without external review) the only comment was as follows: "Comment by the editor: We have again decided against publication in our journal for the following reasons. Firstly, the theoretical embedding of the model into the scientometric context seems to be problematic. The same questions regarding quantification and measurement of the notion of quality (both peer review and journal) can be quantified and measured. Again, we do not see any attempt of giving empirical examples to show concrete implications for quantitative science studies. Finally, the grandiosely introduced free online tool proved a formula for just calculating sensitivity/specificity values based on partially obscure parameters without any other features."

We sent an email to the EiC of Scientometrics (without response). In our email, we said that such an editor's comment shows a content-based bias in our research. This is so because the purpose of peer-review is not to ”kill the paper,” but to evaluate it in terms of its strengths and limitations. However, the editor's comment involves partiality against our submission by virtue of the content (i.e., methods and theoretical orientation) of the work. This is the confirmation bias that challenges the impartiality of peer
review because an editor should evaluate a submission on the basis of its content and relationship to the literature, independently of their own theoretical/methodological preferences and commitments. Furthermore, this is a disciplinary editor that prefers mainstream research and exhibits bias against our interdisciplinary research that used Bayesian inference and Information Theory to define the optimal value of sensitivity and specificity of the peer-review process. In addition, he or she also has a contemptuous and little considerate treatment of us authors.

Please, see the repetitive use of “again”, and the lack of sense of some of their sentences. Especially disrespectful and with a complete lack of rigor and knowledge is their comment “the grandiosely introduced free online tool proved a formula for just calculating sensitivity/specificity values based on partially obscure parameters without any other features." On the other hand, it is especially relevant that their comment (without external review) of 7 lines of text, took them a total of two full months. In my opinion, it is another clear attempt to hinder our work.

By definition, mathematics and computer science are quantitative fields and also we published more than 30 papers in the same journal using a similar theoretical orientation.

However, in the last year, it seems that this same approach (theoretical and mathematical) is no longer valid for this editor repetitively assigned to our submissions. He or she is clearly an editor opposed to our approach and work, who does not send the works for external review, although showing that he or she is clearly not an expert in his/her comments that lack (in our opinion) the minimum rigor necessary to evaluate the work of scientists (more after publishing around thirty papers in Scientometrics).

Motivation: Extremely slow process. Mediocre reviews, somewhat lacking expertise.

Motivation: The information in the email response about the rejection reasons is rather generic. It goes as follows:

Due to the number of submissions we receive, which is many more than we can publish, I regret that the Journal will not be able to use your manuscript.

This decision was based on the editors' evaluation of the merits of your manuscript compared with those of the many others we receive. This evaluation includes consideration of the paper's interest to our readers, the originality and design of the study and the quality of the manuscript.

Motivation: One referee suggests accepting with very positive comments, while the other suggests rejecting because we did not cite one reference which is actually not relevant to our study.

Motivation: "However, in view of published work on the development and characterization of tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound, we feel that this study does not reach the high threshold in degree of advance that we look for in comparable manuscripts that we consider for external peer review."

They were really fast with the editorial process (2 days, with one day being on a weekend). Whether they are correct or not in terms of how big an advance is needed is of course debatable.

Motivation: As is normal, this paper was reviewed by the editorial board. In what would amount to minor revisions in another journal was a rejection (as per their policies). It took us 1 hour to do the relevant adjustments, and there were 2 technical comments that were plainly wrong. Their deal is transparent (in or out), but their bar also seems pretty high.

Motivation: Fast handling, eternal review only takes 10 days

Motivation: The review speed of this journal is very slow.

Motivation: The process on the editor side took too much time. One review was constructive, while another gave mixed feelings.

Motivation: I appreciate the coordinator and handling process in general. However I really disappoint with revieweres response. Out of four reviewers. There is only one reviewer who seem read through my article and provide rational and constructive feedback. The other two seem not read and suggest what indeed written in the article then they provide mainly linguistic problem. However, the most painful reviewer seem only repeatedly negative 'opinion' without any specific learning points.

Motivation: It seems we didn't explain well enough what is new in this paper...

Motivation: Desk rejection letter was summary, with no justification given and no constructive comment of any kind, such as other journal suggestions. Given the amount of money requested for the submission, this is disappointing. The only positive mention is that it was an very fast rejection.

Motivation: The review process was essentially quite smooth; there was a substantial delay in between, but we managed to be informed: a more proactive communication would have been appreciated.