Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
fair review process done by experts in the field
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
One review suggested revision, the other was rude and suggested rejection. both were rather short (~300 words).
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
8.1 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editorial team was helpful when we asked about the review status.
Motivation:
We waited for two years for the first decision. We tried to contact the journal at least seven times but only received an answer in August 2021. The journal wasted our time. It could have had desk rejected our paper and had given us an opportunity to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviewers made very helpful comments and suggested major revision. The editor rejected the manuscript, but the feedback contributed to the improvement of the paper for future submission in another journal.
2.0 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Helpful review process, with many constructive comments made by reviewers. We were given sufficient time to address them, and they helped improve the paper.
Motivation:
It was a very bad experience. After waiting for more than 6 months, the magazine changed the editor twice and did not send me any comments about the manuscript. I have send periodic emails to the co-editor and he did not deal with me professionally. I advise you not to deal with this journal.
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
This process took way too long.
34.0 weeks
34.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
9.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2.3 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Really slow turnaround time for immediate rejection without being sent to reviewers. They were polite with the standard rejection letter but said 'We hope this can avoid delay of your submission to other journals.' I am not sure almost 3 weeks qualifies as avoiding delay.
Motivation:
There was only one review report after 3 months.
No comments from the editor.
The review report completely missed the category of the submitted article and provided wrong judgement. The editor was not the same specialty.
to summarize, very bad review process, while the article was accepted afterwards by another journal.
No comments from the editor.
The review report completely missed the category of the submitted article and provided wrong judgement. The editor was not the same specialty.
to summarize, very bad review process, while the article was accepted afterwards by another journal.
Motivation:
The review process for this journal was extremely long and one of the longest I ever experienced.
After such long period, the article was rejected by opinion of 2 reviewers which all together included a total of 5 sentences.
One reviewer even suggested revision of the article and provided some compliments.
But the other reviewer has copy-pasted limitations of the study and, even more, rejected on the basis that part of the study was not demonstrated - which was actually presented in both Tables and Text!
Finally, the editor who rejected the article is coming from another specialty and completely different area of expertise.
In summary, I am not considering this journal for future submissions anymore, while before impact factor went up - it was completely different experience.
After such long period, the article was rejected by opinion of 2 reviewers which all together included a total of 5 sentences.
One reviewer even suggested revision of the article and provided some compliments.
But the other reviewer has copy-pasted limitations of the study and, even more, rejected on the basis that part of the study was not demonstrated - which was actually presented in both Tables and Text!
Finally, the editor who rejected the article is coming from another specialty and completely different area of expertise.
In summary, I am not considering this journal for future submissions anymore, while before impact factor went up - it was completely different experience.
Motivation:
The reviewers and editor provide constructive to help craft the article in a comprehensive manner. We are so happy to have our research published in this prestigious journal.
13.0 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled properly. Reviews were in within several months and they greatly improved our work.
Motivation:
A 14-month wait for a review was excessive, even during COVID. And correspondence with the editorial assistants lead me to believe there were serious management problems beyond difficulties finding reviewers due to covid. Despite submission on 12/13/2019, they told me by email that the manuscript was still "awaiting assignment to an associate editor" on 2/15/20. In an email on 6/4/20, they said it had just been sent out for review. The decision finally came in 8 months later on 2/22/21, and the email said: "We apologize for the delay in processing your manuscript. The journal recently completed an editorial transition and has received a 20% increase in submissions this year, compounding our backlog." I consider those things to be their problems to solve, not mine. The two reviews themselves were thoughtful- had we gotten them within a reasonable time, I would have no problem with this journal.
Motivation:
This is, by far, the worst handled/managed journal that I know. A complete mess should be expected when submitting a paper. No clear guidelines for authors or adequate point of contact; for instance, before accepting my article for review, an editorial assistant insisted on modifying it five times based only on the resolution and pixels of the graphics used. Unresponsive staff and extremely slow editorial process. There are many other journals that will always treat authors and submissions in a more respectful manner. After this long delay, I submitted my paper to a Q2 journal and was immediately accepted.
Motivation:
The review and proofing procedures were quick and effective. Although this is not stated explicitly on their website, the journal allows authors to distribute the final version of the paper freely.
Motivation:
This journal did a very detailed and fair judgment, and their response time was very reasonable.
Motivation:
Excellent journal for presentation of clinical cases and surgical technique.