All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Good journal, but the process leaves room for improvements. The first round took a long time only to get short reviews. One reviewer was unreasonable with baseless comments in multiple rounds, and the editor didn't seem keen to help (editors shouldn't be just forwarding reviews). Another reviewer was quite positive, so that helped. The paper got accepted after long rebuttals. After the long first round, the process wasn't that long overall (and the editor was prompt), but it could have been faster and smoother if unreasonable reviewers are not given attention and if editors are active in identifying such cases and communicate with the authors. After acceptance, the PDF was produced quickly.

Motivation: Based on the queries posed by the editorial board member and the two reviewers, one could conclude that they were subject experts. Their suggestions and corrections were carried out. After which the manuscript was completely transformed and I felt that the manuscript made more sense in its present form than in the original form. Also, the work was highly appreciated by the board member.

Motivation: Given the breadth of the document (literature review), the handling time was good. We received three comprehensive and fair reviews in the first round, and two reviews with minor changes in the second round. Communication with editor and production team was very good. The online Editorial Manager systems still feels a bit clunky; however, it has already been improved since our last submission.

Motivation: The status of the manuscript was "Under review" for almost eight months, so we assumed reviewers had been found but the process was taking longer than expected. When we checked in with the journal after almost eight months, we were informed that they had not actually managed to find even one reviewer. They had not got in touch with us during all this time to explain what was happening. The editor was copied into our correspondence with the editorial office but chose not to respond to us directly. We withdrew the paper after wasting eight months.

Motivation: Great experience. The review process was fast and reviewers raised good and constructive points.

Motivation: We received a notification about rejecting the manuscript from the editor on April 5, due to the manuscript does not fit editorial criteria.

Motivation: We submitted our manuscript to Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology (BMC) in early December 2021. We received a confirmation of receipt after this. According to the submission system, the journal tried to find reviewers for the manuscript. Unfortunately, this was not the case. We inquired about the current status two times and offered help in finding suitable reviewers. On both occasions, we received the same reply stating that they tried to find reviewers. After more than 5 months, our manuscript was desk rejected after internal peer review. No reasons were given. We received news that there was a technical error and the journal apologized in a very impersonal way. We were highly disappointed - particularly with regard to the fact that we inquired two times about the manuscript status. We cannot recommend this journal.

Motivation: My experience is in accordance with other reviews here. The review process is very slow and the communication with the journal is not good. Our submitted manuscript was sent for peer review and we received reports after 5 months. We resubmitted the revised manuscript within 2.5 weeks addressing all the comments. We felt that one reviewer report was very professional, the other reviewer was not experienced in the field. Afterwards, something surprising happened. We received comments from two _new_ reviewers. Their comments requested the exact opposite as the first two reviewers. Our manuscript was rejected. I would not submit here again. It is a waste of time with poor communication. I may add that our manuscript was sent back once randomly: a person in the editorial office hit the wrong button (and apologized for it). I would not recommend BMC Public Health.

Motivation: I cannot believe how incompetent IEEE Access were. It took us more than 11months to get through the peer review process. After the first peer review round (that took almost 4 months), we addressed the reviewers comments. After resubmitting the manuscript, the paper was went to one of the same reviewers who outright said it is acceptable for publication without any further edits. The second reviewer asked us to add one reference and to reorganize a paragraph. The editor still recommended revising and resubmission. We implemented the changes and sent it again for review. However after we sent it, the peer reviewing process took 5+ months. We contacted the journals more than 4 times and every time, we got a reply saying that the reviewers are still reviewing the changes, without further clarifications.

IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.

Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.

After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.

Very bad publication experience.

Motivation: The quality of the reviews is fine. However, I experienced the review process as rather slow (especially 2nd and 3rd round which were only minor changes). Also the period after acceptance took more than 4 months.

Motivation: Almost two months for desk rejection.

Motivation: The handling was fast. One reviewer highly recommended it with lots of compliments. The other one criticized it, was skeptical, and said there are no clinical and in vivo data yet, which is not entirely true.

Motivation: This was a transfer from Advanced Materials. The same negative reviewer was called, and the manuscript rejected.

Motivation: Very fast handling.