Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
"As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, our decision is based on the paper’s appeal to Nature’s broad audience, rather than a judgment of its technical robustness. "
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
Motivation:
Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
Motivation:
Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
Motivation:
very long review process!
Motivation:
The reviewers' report was excellent. They identified the shortcoming very thoroughly.
Motivation:
We got an immediate desk-reject. The editor has a checklist of reasons that would cause immediate rejection. The applicable one in our case was that the journal does not publish studies that use convenience sampling (which we use in our paper).
There was no scientific argument for rejecting the paper on that ground (our study did not have a specific segment and we demonstrated equality in key composition in the experimental treatments). It was either a pure 'matter of principle' or the editor just didn't like the paper and used this as an excuse.
At any rate, at least they didn't sit on the paper for long and we could quickly resubmit somewhere else.
There was no scientific argument for rejecting the paper on that ground (our study did not have a specific segment and we demonstrated equality in key composition in the experimental treatments). It was either a pure 'matter of principle' or the editor just didn't like the paper and used this as an excuse.
At any rate, at least they didn't sit on the paper for long and we could quickly resubmit somewhere else.
Motivation:
The reviewers had decided that the work was not sufficiently novel despite that it identified key issues in the field which had been previously ignored. Perhaps the journal was not a good choice for increasing access to our field.
Motivation:
A bit of delay but good reviews overall
Motivation:
Very superficial rejection after only one day
Motivation:
We received only one superficial review after 2 months of wait, with outright rejection as decision...
Motivation:
High time pressure on both reviewers and authors - nice for rapid publication, but can also have drawbacks. Downgraded for poor copyediting.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround, all-around positive.
Motivation:
Exceptionally slow review process based on only 1-2 reviewers.
Motivation:
My paper was with editor for 3 weeks. The submission site displayed "under review" instead of "with editor", which is unnecessarily confusing. I received a desk rejection e-mail that was clearly a template directed to authors whose paper had been under peer review. Overall dissatisfied.