Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Have reviewed for CJR a significant number of times, and published in this journal twice. No automatic e-mail confirmation of receipt, and the submission platform does not allow paper writers to recommend possible reviewers nor suggest ones that may not be appropriate. Sent separate e-mail to editor, re issue, no response. After two weeks sent e-mail asking status, paper sent back with vague statement asking paper writer to conform to journal style. Inserted conflict of interest statement, sent back to journal, two weeks later paper checked platform which indicates that it is still administrative processing. Contact asst. ed. ask for explanation. Receive similar e-mail stating that paper needs to conform to journal subject and style. Write editor for explanation. Editor instructed me to find another journal.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 25.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This journal does not use an online submissions platform, but rather instructs authors to submit manuscripts to a submissions editor at their email address. Two weeks after submission, not having received an acknowledgement of receipt of the manuscript from the submissions editor, I followed up with an email inquiring if they had received my submission. A week later, still with no reply, I followed up again with an email cc'd to the journal editors. Finally, after a fourth email was not acknowledged, I sent an email withdrawing my submission, almost a month after the initial submission.
I am not impressed at all with this journal at all and will not submit something to them again.
I am not impressed at all with this journal at all and will not submit something to them again.
6.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After the second round, the reviewers put "Reject" and "Major"; however, comments were really minor. The editor asked them to answer and accepted the article.
Motivation:
Nature Aging was only launched in January 2021, so at time of submission there was limited staff to follow up on slow reviewers and respond promptly to inquiries. Apart from the delays, the publishing process was comparable to other Nature Portfolio journals.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was extremely biased and had destructive criticism, she/he did not even read the results section, but just scrolled through the graphs, the second reviewer had more constructive criticism and seemed to had actually read the manuscript. The Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on that.
Motivation:
Editor suggested a "consumer behavior"-journal which is code for "bad research" among consumer culture scholars. No reason why the paper did not fit was offered (also, the paper did not in any way discuss "behavior", but supplied criticism of core tenets in consumer culture theory/practice theory).
Motivation:
The review process took 8 months in total, which is in line with the timeline provided on the journal website (214 days).
In the first (and only) round of comments (major revisions), the reports were quite detailed (2 reviewers and comments from three editors). It took us some time to revise the manuscript and respond accurately. However, I think that the review process helped improve our work. We appreciated that the editor accepted an extension of two weeks to respond to the comments. After one month from the re-submission, the manuscript was accepted for publication.
In the first (and only) round of comments (major revisions), the reports were quite detailed (2 reviewers and comments from three editors). It took us some time to revise the manuscript and respond accurately. However, I think that the review process helped improve our work. We appreciated that the editor accepted an extension of two weeks to respond to the comments. After one month from the re-submission, the manuscript was accepted for publication.
52.0 weeks
52.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal is very professional, but reviewing of the paper by this journal takes a long time.
Motivation:
Although this goes under "desk reject", I have never received such precise feedback on a desk rejection, clearly identifying why the paper was not a good fit for the journal.
52.0 weeks
55.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal is very professional, but reviewing of the paper by this journal takes a long time.
Motivation:
Editor was very responsive and proactive. Editorial office or system was very sensitive and flagged any and all potential threats to double blind review, no matter how minor. In some cases, no additional changes had to be made despite triggering the "identifying information potentially present" alarm, however this was after all authors were notified -and these types of notifications were automatic and frequent. I wish the system would insert the "triggers" in reports to the author so we could remedy the problem more expeditiously. Still the editorial office was responsive to email questions.
Motivation:
It took a while, but the reviewer reports were painfully accurate in identifying weaknesses with the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was delayed due to non-reponse from one of the reviewers but the editors were apologetic about it and were prompt to respond to follow-up emails and finding a solution. Otherwise the review process improved the paper and the acception on resubmission was very quick.
5.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We had to revise our paper two times before it was accepted. First, we received two reviews. After revising the manuscript, it was accepted by one but declined by the other reviewer. The editor asked a third person to review the manuscript who also suggested to accept it. The editor, therefore, gave us a second opportunity to revise the manuscript. We did and after this it was accepted, even though one reviewer still wasn't completelly convinced by the paper. The second review process was quite long, but when we asked the editorial staff we always received prompt and helpful answers.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and quick. Reviewers gave us constructive feedback which was clear and easy to address. I truly believe that both reviewers gave comments that ameliorated the manuscript. I would definitely resubmit to this journal.
Motivation:
Very helpful and timely reviews, very short time to submission. Great journal overall.
32.7 weeks
50.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Editors are kind and professional. I feel the comments of reviewer(s) improved my paper. But the waiting time is excessively long with this journal.
Motivation:
Even though the result was rejection, the reviews were of excellent quality. The editor apologized for the unusually long review process.
Motivation:
I decided to withdraw the manuscript after nearly 8 months of waiting for a decision. When I checked in after 5 and 7 months, both time the editors said the second reviewer was late and they would try to find a new one. The one review I did get was very short but positive.
Motivation:
The reviewers made very helpful comments in both review rounds and the manuscript was improved. The total handling lasted about 6 mo and we are satisfied with the result.
Motivation:
From the perspective of the author, an average review. The reviews were all very detailed. Overall, failed to enthuse the reviewers.
Motivation:
First I was very surprise to see that we had 1 unique reviewer and his first statement was that the topic was complex (so obviously not someone from the field). He made a lot of criticism but we were able to make corrections and provide more data. After a first round, the reviewer was still unsatisfied and ask for more experiment to be done (that were not asked at first). Even though surprising, we have done all the corrections required by the referee but he finally decided to reject the paper for an unclear reason ("the work has no clear focus (???)") . Anyway, having 1 biased reviewer just demonstrates the poor rigour of the journal.