Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It takes almost two weeks for them to reject without external review. I feel it is too much (and sadly it happens all the time).
Motivation:
They handled my manuscript in a professional.
Very fast editorial and external reviewers review process.
In less than 2 months of initial submissions the manuscript was published
Very fast editorial and external reviewers review process.
In less than 2 months of initial submissions the manuscript was published
Motivation:
Two weeks and a standard desk rejection....
We (like Nature) decline a large proportion of submitted manuscripts without sending them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a strong enough case for publication in Nature Physics. I am sorry to have to say that we must take this view in the present case.
We (like Nature) decline a large proportion of submitted manuscripts without sending them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a strong enough case for publication in Nature Physics. I am sorry to have to say that we must take this view in the present case.
Motivation:
There was a lot of back and forth between the editor and authors, and it overall improved the quality of the accepted manuscript. Nat Prot is apparently (as admitted by the editor) having done staffing issues at the moment, so the manuscript stalled in a couple of spots during consideration. For instance, in the last round of took 12 days to move from "received" to "under consideration" and even then took longer than expected to reach a final decision with the minimal revisions present in the final resubmission. All in all, the process was fair and produced a better manuscript in the end, but was slowed significantly at times.
Motivation:
After a very long wait, we had a rejection with short reviews.
Motivation:
Six months for an initial review round is quite long, the editor was extremely hands-off (e.g. did not add a single word of text beyond generic responses), and we only received one review, which the online portal said was submitted in May (we received it in August as they were waiting for additional reviews). The reviewer was an expert in the field and added considerably to the manuscript, which made the process worthwhile. Still, I will likely submit to one of the other open-access journals next time.
Motivation:
This article never left the editor's desk after 6 months and numerous follow-up emails. So we withdrew it. We submitted in mid-March. A few very minor technical issues (which could have been sorted out after acceptance, and for which there seemed to contradictory advice) delayed it twice. It was sent back once, and the next time it sat for a couple of weeks with a tiny issue, but without notifying us. So it was formally submitted mid-April. That was the last communication of substance we received. We followed up on the website a few times, with a couple of vague responses received. The last two emails were unanswered. More recently, we emailed the publishers only to receive a patronizing email saying it was under control in 'due course'. Really, we should stop being impatient. Given this was a major multi-country survey of direct policy relevance to Covid-19, patience really was not at issue.
Motivation:
Reasonable editorial response time. Appropriate selection of reviewers who provided thorough review and suggestions. Editorial was reasonably good and provide a 'track-changes' document which makes it easy to find potential mistakes, which is very nice. Only a single possibility to provide changes to the pdf proof results in some hesitancy to address non-essential issues. Some figures had considerable flaws in the proof and required specific comment to correct the flaw (inconsistent raster resolution, strange movement of text). Flawed figures with no comment remained flawed (minor issues). Equation editing via comment feels unsafe in context of 'only one proof iteration'. Lack of multiple proof reads should be changed. After several months of revision, more than 48 hours of proofreading should be possible.
Motivation:
Very poor handling: 20 months between submission and acceptance of my manuscript, while the journal states on its website 7 months between submission and acceptance
Motivation:
We receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that, even if certified as being technically correct during peer review, there would not be a strong case for publication in Nature Climate Change. Among the considerations that arise at this stage are the immediacy of interest for the wider climate research community, the degree of advance provided, and the like.
Motivation:
Rejected at pre-submission inquiry
Motivation:
Transferred from Nature Climate Change upon suggestion. "We decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
"Significant and interesting findings but unfortunately not significant enough for this journal" Quite a lengthy and detailed reply from the editor. They suggested going to Nature communications
Motivation:
Very long waiting time for the process, no feedback during 4 months, no update on the platform. It is impossible to contact the editor directly when this kind of problem is present (only the use of the platform). A final decision that did not take into consideration at all the reviewers comments that were all very nice, positive, and encouraging. We asked for an explanation to the editor since the decision was at the opposite of the reviewers comments but the editor never replied to us.... = a waste of 5 months during this process that it is really problematic in view of the high competition in the field ! No positive experiences during the process.
Motivation:
Very unprofessionally handled journal. After three weeks of editor's inactivity, we decided to withdraw our submission. The EIC totally ignored our e-mails about the status of our submission.
Motivation:
The process was too slow with some issues. First, I submitted a paper according to the guide for authors, and it was returned to me because of a detail that was in line with the journal’s guide for authors. I was told to do something else, which conflicts with the guide for authors of the very same journal, bizarre. After pointing out that issue, I was ignored. So I had no choice but to resubmit the paper conflicting with their rules. Then, the paper was listed “With Editor” for about a month before being sent out for review. After a few months, the paper was still under review. So I emailed them, and I was told that an insufficient number of reviewers accepted the editor’s invitation, and they will invite additional reviewers. It turns out that my submission remained in limbo, so I had to remind them to do that, and if I didn’t write an email to them, who knows for how long my submission would have been unnoticed. 4-5 months after the submission, I sent another email to ask about the status. Same issue: the paper does not have enough reviewers, so they will invite additional ones. Again, I had to push them to do their job. After offering suggestions for additional reviewers, I got a curt response from the journal manager that’s not required. More than a month later, the paper was still under review. Finally, two reviews arrived. One review was excellent, with very valid points, which are much appreciated. The other one was bogus, very generic, and with weird comments. The only reason why I gave a rating of 2 instead of 1 is because of the quality of one review report and the prompt responses by the editor.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided constructive and pertinent feedback to help make the manuscript in a good shape. The review process was swift and the editor responded to any questions promptly. It was a great experience to submit my work to this journal.
Motivation:
Very satisfied with the overall process in Journal of Materials Chemistry A. The editor quickly handled our manuscript and the reviewers gave us insightful comments.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 304.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Four months after my submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Five months after submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Six months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that they were "fully aware of the delay in processing your manuscript". And that was the end of the e-mail. So no apologies, no 'real' update on number of reviewers, no estimated timeline, ...
Nine months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that 1 of the reviews was in, but that they were still waiting on a second review. They had send a reminder to the reviewer. They ended the e-mail with "it might still take a while before the final review comes in."
So, after nine months it could still 'take a while'. That is when I decided to withdraw my article. Huge waste of time.
Five months after submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Six months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that they were "fully aware of the delay in processing your manuscript". And that was the end of the e-mail. So no apologies, no 'real' update on number of reviewers, no estimated timeline, ...
Nine months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that 1 of the reviews was in, but that they were still waiting on a second review. They had send a reminder to the reviewer. They ended the e-mail with "it might still take a while before the final review comes in."
So, after nine months it could still 'take a while'. That is when I decided to withdraw my article. Huge waste of time.
Motivation:
The journal did not give proper credit to an additional author working on the revision. It seems highly unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This has a negative impact on the journal reputation.
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
Motivation:
Unlike with some other publications, the editor actually gave useful & helpful input and made informed decisions particularly in first round of review. Unfortunate process glitch lead to entirely unnecessary third revision round and thus a few weeks delay, however (resubmit with zero changes). After two recent poor experiences, I was positively surprised by ACS copyediting.
Motivation:
The editors in Science Immunology are very absent. My manuscript was transferred to Science Immunology, but after two months, it stays in limbo without any action from the editor. The status has not changed a single time after the transfer, and the editor has not even had a quick glance at the manuscript. This really makes me upset. I have been sending emails to the editor after 7 weeks, but he never replied (meanwhile being fairly active on Twitter). It seems that many people (including my colleagues) have the same experience with Science Immunology. So one should be really patient and good-tempered if you decide to submit to this journal.
Motivation:
Very swift handling. Reviewers clearly knew topic area and offered insightful and brief comments.
Motivation:
Fast handling and online very quickly after manuscript accepted. A single reviewer, which was strange to me.
Motivation:
We had to wait quite long for the outcomes of the first review round, but after we received the editor's letter the whole process unfolded quite quickly. The reviews were useful and helped us to improve the text.
Motivation:
Excellent experience. Demanding but knowledgeable, reasonable, and prompt reviews that have improved the paper. The editor was quite prompt. The only issue is that the paper took too long to appear online after being accepted, but that's the issue of the publisher (Elsevier) rather than the journal team.
Motivation:
Desk rejected for "this work lacks sufficient novelty and broad interest for JACS".