Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The entire review process of the journal "Agronomy for Sustainable Development" was smooth and enlightening. The reviewers of the journal are knowledgeable and their review could potentially enhance the quality of the submitted manuscript to a much higher level. The managing editors are supportive and are flexible particularly with respect to time of submission of revisions. The issue faced by the authors are very punctually addressed by the editors which makes it easy during review and editing process.
Motivation:
Reasonable waiting time for reviewers to get back to us, in general good experience publishing with this journal.
Motivation:
The communication from the journal was consistently poor. I spent many hours implementing the recommendations from the original review panel, only for my paper to be sent to new reviewers who were not sent an overview of the revisions asked of me. I waited 7 months to receive feedback from the 2 new reviewers, one of whom only provided 3 sentences of feedback. Although the original review process was productive, the second review process was disappointing due to the length of time waited and lack of detail provided.
Motivation:
Manuscript did not have broad enough appeal. Kind letter from editors.
Motivation:
Our paper was eventually accepted after a very large revision that took many experiments and resources to carry out. This was stimulated by the fact that all the reviewers wanted many different experiments done for the paper to be a "Neuron paper". I think overall the experience was positive. The editors will do whatever the reviewers indicate, so if the reviewers indicate that you need to do a ton of work for the revision, then either you do it or you look elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review time was really long. What made it worse was that the reviews did not seem to be coming from someone who read the paper thoroughly and understood it. It seemed like the reviewers did not spend enough time on the paper.
Motivation:
The process should have been much faster. The prolongation of the editorial process lowered our chances of publishing it in competing D1 journals.
Motivation:
I appreciate the swift decision. In addition, the editorial mail provided useful and constructive comments.
Motivation:
A reviewer probably did not read our manuscript but just showed general opinions since there are not any specific comments on our manuscript. There would be another possibility that the comments were made for the other paper review and they were used again as the present review without reading our paper. Another reviewer posed just some short specific comments only for the definition of Nusselt number. Besides, the reviewer misunderstood it. An editor did not check these reviewers' comments carefully and judged the manuscript did reach the required quality of the standard journal. This was the most terrible experience that I have ever had. For this unfair decision, I sent emails several times to the editor, but I have not received any replies from him at all.
Motivation:
This review took a bit longer than usual, but the reviews were extensive.
Motivation:
RSC Advances had Article Processing Charges of ~750 GBP. We were forwarded to this journal by the Editor of Green Chemistry, who rejected our manuscript. After slight modifications, we submitted the manuscript and got two reviews after two months waiting. One quite positive and reasonable, another borderline with little substantiation. We revised the manuscript, which was accepted after 3 weeks and published after another week or so.
Motivation:
It takes 6 months to get the 1st review comments. Two reviewers' comments are of high quality but polarized, one suggesting minor revision and find it very interesting, while the other points out a few critics on the theory and methods, which can all be easily solved by revision. Unfortunately, the editors did not grant a revising or an opportunity for explanation. It takes quite long and should have already been in R&R if in other journals.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were very positive, one was hostile because we did not refer to critical race theory, and then made up criticism that simply does not apply. It's really puzzling how the editor handled this, because already the abstract makes it clear that this made-up criticism does not apply. I guess the editor does not accept papers where one of the reviewers suggests a rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers presented fair criticism of our manuscript and it was returned in a timely manner.
Motivation:
The reviewers suggested relevant and straightforward changes. The editor was able to accept the revised manuscript without sending to reviewers again. The only slow step was going from submission to having an editor assigned (few weeks), but after that it proceeded quickly.
Motivation:
The immediate rejection took 2 weeks
Motivation:
We used to publish tribology-related manuscripts in Ind Eng Chem Res, but this time the Editor claimed this was not a topic of interest
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by Surface and Coatings Technology, but after we submitted almost the same thing to another Q1 journal, it was accepted.
Motivation:
The immediate rejection came after 4 days
Motivation:
The Editor considered our manuscript 'out of scope' and suggested transferring to Materials Today Communications with zero Article Processing Charge. We successfully used the Editor's suggestion
Motivation:
The journal is an open source journal. They invited me to submit an article then after it was accepted, they asked for $2,000
Motivation:
Another smooth experience with JEMS, very helpful reviewer comments that helped improve the manuscript and clarifying how the paper relates to the literature.
Motivation:
The feedback was useful although one reviewer seemed to miss the information that had been included (saying it was not included). Additionally, we did incorporate and resubmit to another journal. The biggest issue was the length of time for feedback and the reviewers seemed to have skimmed the article.
Motivation:
This review was not lengthy and no external review was done however, we did change the introduction one more time and this article is now under review at a higher quality journal... so who knows!
Motivation:
The first review round was a good experience: three high-quality reports which helped to improve my manuscript a lot. However, the send review round took a bit more time than I expected, probably due to the summer holiday. Overall, nice experience.
Motivation:
After the manuscript had not been assigned to an editor in almost 3 months, we, unfortunately, had to make the decision to withdraw and submit to another journal. We asked repeatedly about the hold-up and were assured that they were doing their best to find an editor. However, the duration of this process made us question if they were able to find an editor at all, so we decided to withdraw.
Motivation:
Overall, my manuscript was handled well and swiftly. It was send to two reviewers who provided constructive feedback as well as praise for the experiment. I was very happy with the whole review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers and editor were critical but constructive. Their focussed feedback resulted in us revising the manuscript and ending up with a stronger article overall. I would highly recommend this journal
Motivation:
Roughly one and a half months after submission I got 2 reviews. Reviewer #1 thought that the interpretation of data was incorrect (due to an incomplete understanding of the methodology which is partly my fault for not explaining). Reviewer #2 didn't question the correctness of the methodology, seemed to be aware of the developments in the field, but found the paper not groundbreaking enough for Adv. Sci. Tried appealing but in vain.
As both referees agreed that the work has scientific significance, the editor offered a transfer to 3 journals IF 3-4 which I rejected. I believe that the comments of referees were quite useful as correcting them would really improve the quality of the manuscript and it would get published in a journal with a similar IF like Adv. Sci. The editor was really nice and helpful and really tried finding a place for my work at Wiley.
As both referees agreed that the work has scientific significance, the editor offered a transfer to 3 journals IF 3-4 which I rejected. I believe that the comments of referees were quite useful as correcting them would really improve the quality of the manuscript and it would get published in a journal with a similar IF like Adv. Sci. The editor was really nice and helpful and really tried finding a place for my work at Wiley.
Motivation:
The original manuscript received favorable reviews but the editor requested us to reformat it to Letter to the Editor. The revised manuscript was promptly rejected without external review due to lack of space.
19.3 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The quality of reviews was high but the process was slow
Motivation:
The submission process is clear and easy. However, after submission everything went downhill. After the manuscript had been stuck in "editor invited" for 2 months, we contacted the journal if we could help find an editor, and received a boilerplate answer that "our paper had their full attention". After another 5 weeks without a change in status, we decided to withdraw the manuscript.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.