All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Just a quick add-on comment:
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.

Motivation: The editor offered us a direct transfer to a sister journal.

Motivation: 2 reviewers: Major Revision
1 reviewer: Reject & Resubmit
1 reviewer: Reject
editor outcome: reject since he/she thought that it needs more time than a normal time for major revision.

Motivation: The editor is very responsible, and the manuscript processing speed is also very fast. The opinions of the review experts are very professional. After two revisions, the quality of the article has been greatly improved, and the article was received smoothly.

Motivation: The review reports we have received were great: detailed, useful, polite, and encouraging acceptance after the reasonable revisions. The communication with the editor was pretty good as well. However, we also feel that the process should have been shorter: receiving the reviews took the time (e.g. more than a month after revising the paper appropriately and agreeing to nearly all the comments of the reviewers), and on a few occasions the editor's turnaround was not very quick (e.g. it took a few weeks to send the paper for review).

Motivation: The duration of the first review took 8 months, that is very long. From the 3 review reports received, 2 of them were very positive and constructive whilst the third reviewer was very negative and very rude. His criticism was not based on the scientific content of the manuscript but rather on what he thought was appropriate to address in the article.

Motivation: I submitted our paper as a "Presubmission Inquiry". The editor(s) responded very quickly, and pointed out that they don't think our paper would be "broadly useful to the community" and recommended against a full-fledged submission. Overall, the process saved a lot of our time and the editors' and reviewers'.

Motivation: The Journal rejected the manuscript because was not able tp find reviewers

Motivation: The review process was efficient and very constructive.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.

Motivation: Very fast review process and expectations were made very clear by the Reviewers and Editor. The reviews were deservedly critical but helpful for revisions. A great, professional experience.

Motivation: Two months after submitting the manuscript, the editor sent it to my own thesis director for evaluation. This mean that they did not even check that the potential reviewer and the author belong to the same department of the same institution. When my advisor notified me about the situation I have contacted the journal stating that it is ethically wrong to send a manuscript to someone from the same institution for evaluation. They did not even apologize and simply said that they have too much work, which is very disrespectful because all of us have too much work.

I do not know who evaluated the article afterwards because it seems like they send the manuscript to anybody without even checking their institution. The reports were really bad since their main argument for rejection was that they were 'not convinced' by my argument. Nothing serious about methodology, theoretical sources, the analysis, or the literature review. They were just not convinced. The editor also argued that the manuscript did not fit with the Journal’s aims and scope, in this case I do not understand why this was not a desk reject and I had to wait for more than 5 months for useless reviewer reports. This experience makes me think that the editorial office of this journal is not respectful to authors, and they are not careful about how they treat early-career researchers.

Motivation: At least the decision was fast.