Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
There were two reviewers, who gave their feedback.
The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper.
The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.
The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper.
The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.
Motivation:
Very slow for a desk reject.
Motivation:
Acceptable reviewer quality. Relatively quick action from submission to decision/revision.
Motivation:
Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: pre-submission enquire was not effective in determining the editorial decision. We were invited to submit the full manuscript, which was then rejected without peer-review.
Motivation:
Generally, the reviews were useful. They improved the overall quality of the work. However, the review process, especially for the second round, was very long.
Motivation:
The editor was prompt in all communications and the reviewer feedback was thorough. There was a sexist microaggression in the feedback, which was surprising from a "feminist" journal. Submitting is easy, but the journal does not accurately describe its requirements for authors; the need for "insider" knowledge in order to be competitive was also surprising from a "feminist" journal. I hope they align their stated values to their processes.
Motivation:
I waited for reviewer selection for a long time and I contacted the journal editor asking for an update. However, they told me "your article is under review". Then after waiting another two months, I contacted them again recommending potential reviewers. No reply. I waited one more month and got notified that the paper was withdrawn just because they could not find reviewers.
Motivation:
The work fell into the category that the journal no longer covers, although this is not explicit on the journal scope page.
Motivation:
The time to review was very reasonable, reviews were thoughtful and led to an improved manuscript, and after a revision was submitted, the final acceptance came very quickly.
Motivation:
fair review process done by experts in the field
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
One review suggested revision, the other was rude and suggested rejection. both were rather short (~300 words).
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
8.1 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editorial team was helpful when we asked about the review status.
Motivation:
We waited for two years for the first decision. We tried to contact the journal at least seven times but only received an answer in August 2021. The journal wasted our time. It could have had desk rejected our paper and had given us an opportunity to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviewers made very helpful comments and suggested major revision. The editor rejected the manuscript, but the feedback contributed to the improvement of the paper for future submission in another journal.
2.0 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Helpful review process, with many constructive comments made by reviewers. We were given sufficient time to address them, and they helped improve the paper.
Motivation:
It was a very bad experience. After waiting for more than 6 months, the magazine changed the editor twice and did not send me any comments about the manuscript. I have send periodic emails to the co-editor and he did not deal with me professionally. I advise you not to deal with this journal.
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
This process took way too long.
34.0 weeks
34.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
9.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2.3 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Really slow turnaround time for immediate rejection without being sent to reviewers. They were polite with the standard rejection letter but said 'We hope this can avoid delay of your submission to other journals.' I am not sure almost 3 weeks qualifies as avoiding delay.
Motivation:
There was only one review report after 3 months.
No comments from the editor.
The review report completely missed the category of the submitted article and provided wrong judgement. The editor was not the same specialty.
to summarize, very bad review process, while the article was accepted afterwards by another journal.
No comments from the editor.
The review report completely missed the category of the submitted article and provided wrong judgement. The editor was not the same specialty.
to summarize, very bad review process, while the article was accepted afterwards by another journal.