Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
"The Editors concluded that this manuscript was more appropriate for a subspecialty journal."
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected after the second round of review. One reviewer was accepted but the second one is looking only at English. Elsevier journals have a problem in that their reviewers stick to language. Paper belongs to the compression of the image and the reviewer had no knowledge about the coding efficiency or coding complexity. Paper was written as a single author by me.
I am disappointed with the Elsevier journals.
I am disappointed with the Elsevier journals.
Motivation:
Initially, the editor wanted two reviewers. After the first contact after three months of review duration, the Researcher support wrote that they were waiting for one review report, which the reviewer should send in 2 weeks. After one month, I contacted the journal again and received the answer that the review report was 33 days late, and the support forwarded the query to the handling editor. This editor promptly sent the review report and, based on this report, rejected the manuscript.
After the advertisement of a review time and final decision time frame of 3.5 weeks, my expectations were higher than one review report after 18.6 weeks, on which, after two contacts with the support, the decision was made.
After the advertisement of a review time and final decision time frame of 3.5 weeks, my expectations were higher than one review report after 18.6 weeks, on which, after two contacts with the support, the decision was made.
Motivation:
Biased judgement on our adoption of theoretical lens and methodology. Other parts of the comments just consist of very generic challenges on research motivation (which we have justified the motivation quite well already). No recommendations were made for improving the manuscript.
And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.
And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.
Motivation:
The total time it took for the manuscript to be rejected without being sent for review was too long, in our opinion (1 month). However, the Editor, in the rejection letter, provided an objective explanation for this long wait. More importantly, in the rejection letter it was evident that the Editor had taken the time to read through our manuscript and had given it some thought before their final rejection, for which we were thankful.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
The Editor suggested submission to sister journal Nature Food, which we did.
Motivation:
The editor "feels" that the English is not up to standard, but we used various grammar and language quality checks to evaluate our manuscript and it consistently got high evaluation scores. The editor did not point out specific language issues that significantly affect the readability of our manuscript and so the decision is not convincing at all. Definitely wouldn't recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The referees' comments were extensive, but led to substantial improvement of the manuscript. The editorial team handled the submission very professionally and provided useful feedback for addressing the referees' comments.
Motivation:
1. Fast review process (4weeks to the first decision)
2. The MS was reviewed by experts
3. Very detailed and, thus, challenging review
4. The reviewers opinion contributed a lot to improvement of our MS
My overall impression for this journal is very good. My manuscript was sent to experts in this field and undergone thorough review.
Since SSM-population health is an OA journal, APC must be paid. If it were not, I would like to submit more often.
2. The MS was reviewed by experts
3. Very detailed and, thus, challenging review
4. The reviewers opinion contributed a lot to improvement of our MS
My overall impression for this journal is very good. My manuscript was sent to experts in this field and undergone thorough review.
Since SSM-population health is an OA journal, APC must be paid. If it were not, I would like to submit more often.
Motivation:
The reviews were fair and comprehensive and seemed to be from experts in the field. I thought the process was a little slow and we sent at least one chasing email.
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Fair handling time, and fair referees.
Motivation:
I had to recommend the journal to my colleagues for publication.
I had like to add that the close-ended structure of the preceding questions do not allow me to indicate that my article is still on review. However, those review dates given are the expected time associated with the journal guidelines for publication.
I had like to add that the close-ended structure of the preceding questions do not allow me to indicate that my article is still on review. However, those review dates given are the expected time associated with the journal guidelines for publication.
9.3 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were extensive and well-argued, and for the most part contributed to improving the quality of the text. My overall impression is that the peer-review process was fast.
Motivation:
Too long waiting time until the article is sent to reviewers, and rejection decision.
Motivation:
Although the opinions from the reviewers seemed to suggest a minor revision of the work, the paper was fully rejected due to "The reviewers have advised against publication of your manuscript and I must therefore reject it at this time". The editor proposed the option to resubmit the manuscript after substantial changes
Motivation:
Standard handling, based on two reviewers who were not excited about the manuscript and did not find the evidence compelling enough, the editor decided not to wait for a third reviewer.
Motivation:
Fast handling, but report felt like referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Motivation:
Highly in-depth or detailed review that initially enhanced the manuscript following the presence of major issues. Subsequent reviews where then somewhat futile and potentially held up the publication process. N.B., studies on manual aiming/interception may likely go to or favour selection of one particular reviewer that provides useful insights, although incredibly "long-winded" and exhaustive to handle.
Motivation:
With credit to the editor, they tried tirelessly to contact and obtain reviewers, although all of which were solely suggested by the authors. It took in excess of 22 suggested reviewers before the final set of suggested reviewers had successfully volunteered. This seeming reluctance to review could be attributed in part to the unblinded review process.
Motivation:
- The review process was long
- The comments about technical requirements caused losing quite a bit of time before the paper was accepted.
- The comments about technical requirements caused losing quite a bit of time before the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was long and thorough. Most of the reviewer comments were constructive and served to improve the manuscript. There was an additional round of editorial comments at the end.
Motivation:
This review took a very long time. I wish there was more transparency around how long decisions take on average.