Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The turnaround times for reviews was excellent. The online review forum was useful
Motivation:
The handling is fast and correct.
Motivation:
The web platform of the Journal is unrefined, and complex to interpret. Communication on the stages of the review is lacking. Proofs were problematic too.
56.4 weeks
138.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers were very professional and their comments were very constructive. However, the overall journal duration from submission to acceptance is very not commendable. I do not recommend this journal if you want a fast publication of your manuscript.
Motivation:
The editors responded always very quickly.
The reviews itself were very helpful including helpful references. I learned a lot during the review process.
The reviews itself were very helpful including helpful references. I learned a lot during the review process.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was just one sentence that was vague and contained inaccurate statements. For one, it said the identification of the estimated parameters was unclear without bothering to specify where exactly the identification problem is. Second, it made a false statement saying the two functions I am estimating "largely contain" the same variables, while in reality they are based on five variables only one of them being common.
Motivation:
The EA comment is valid, and high in quality
Motivation:
This journal is slow in terms of processing the manuscript and giving decisions.
Motivation:
So, if are thinking that providing a sound description of your experimental analysis (included hypotheses and description of empirical analysis) is what registered report mean at this journal, as in Nature journals, this is NOT THE case...this is just serve to "check the water"-. Save your money!
Motivation:
Quality reviews. After the 1st revision, the editor sent out for review again. Relatively quick with editorial decisions.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Precise and justified decisions, timely review, quality review reports, sensible comments from the reviewers, and logical acceptance of the revision.
The only limitation (but not linked to the review process) in my opinion is the strict word limit and the time to publication after being accepted (but they are in a process of improving the time to publication).
The only limitation (but not linked to the review process) in my opinion is the strict word limit and the time to publication after being accepted (but they are in a process of improving the time to publication).
Motivation:
After 10 months since the paper submits, two major revisions and two minor revisions, the paper was accepted. Editors are polite.
Motivation:
Journal editors were easy to contact and provided quick response. The revision rounds were fairly quick and of very good quality.
Motivation:
Handling was ok. Both reviews were short, one 331 words, the other just one sloppy sentence, even without caring for correct grammar. While the first addressed some minor and one major point and not conluding a decision, the second was an advice against publication but with a ridiculously superficial discussion.
The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.
The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.
Motivation:
The requested studies took a long time (particularly during the pandemic) and I felt that given all the extra work I wish that I had simply moved to another journal given the very strongly opinionated reviewer that made request but outside of a full animal study nothing would have been enough.
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers commented on the work in detail, and the editor's summary was also very helpful in improving the paper. However, one of the reviewers kept on insisting on adding very tangential papers in the related works section written by the same author. I believe this is not good practice among the reviewers of a journal widely recognized as the best in the field of computer networks.
Motivation:
as my manuscript was rejected but I have to say that the immediate action was so good and the chief editor of the journal sent me the reason for rejection very respectfully and logically which I didn't found in any other Journal before.
Motivation:
First, we waited for 6 weeks before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers. After all, the manuscript was not reviewed by external reviewers and decision was made by one of the editors in chief.
The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper. We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor. We believe the review process is not very professional.
The article was rejected with not proper consideration and based on a single opinion without processing to the associate editor and reviewers despite we have received a compliment that the manuscript is interesting within the same paragraph.
The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper. We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor. We believe the review process is not very professional.
The article was rejected with not proper consideration and based on a single opinion without processing to the associate editor and reviewers despite we have received a compliment that the manuscript is interesting within the same paragraph.
Motivation:
This submission was hands down the most unprofessional submission I have ever experienced (and I have experienced many). I would never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
The editor made a decision to reject my manuscript based on the feedback from three reviewers.
Reviewer 1 wrote their feedback in Portuguese which was then translated by Google translator into English. If a reviewer is unable to write 254-word review in English, then it is hard to believe that they thoroughly understood a 2912-word manuscript written in English.
Reviewer 2 claimed that there were "A lot of methodological elements have not been adequately described". Those elements were regarding the sample size estimation, the process of recruitment, and the process of data collection. Obviously, these comments could have been revised and addressed through conducting a second round of submission.
Reviewer 3 asked only for a very minor change in the conclusion of the manuscript.
After getting the decision email, I sent an email to the journal editorial office and was hoping that the managing editor would at least acknowledge receiving my email. However, that has not happened.
Overall, this has been one of the worst experiences I have ever had with a scientific journal.
Reviewer 1 wrote their feedback in Portuguese which was then translated by Google translator into English. If a reviewer is unable to write 254-word review in English, then it is hard to believe that they thoroughly understood a 2912-word manuscript written in English.
Reviewer 2 claimed that there were "A lot of methodological elements have not been adequately described". Those elements were regarding the sample size estimation, the process of recruitment, and the process of data collection. Obviously, these comments could have been revised and addressed through conducting a second round of submission.
Reviewer 3 asked only for a very minor change in the conclusion of the manuscript.
After getting the decision email, I sent an email to the journal editorial office and was hoping that the managing editor would at least acknowledge receiving my email. However, that has not happened.
Overall, this has been one of the worst experiences I have ever had with a scientific journal.
Motivation:
review process is incredibly slow.
Motivation:
The very long process only for understanding whether it is suitable for the journal or not!
Motivation:
After one year without any response I had to withdraw my manuscript, the support kept giving me the same answers and the editor was not responding.
Motivation:
Fairly quick and useful reviews. The editorial standard was quite high.
Motivation:
Transferred from another ASM journal after external peer review. Re-reviewed only by a senior editor, who requested a minor revision. Together with the previous round of review, ASM's manuscript handling was overall streamlined and satisfiable.
Motivation:
The article was sent to review and the 4 reviewers provided very deep and useful review reports. The article was then rejected unfortunately, but the review reports were precious to improve my article.