Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Quite long time for immediate reject,
Motivation:
No response from editors when asked about exceptionally long review time, rejection based on one (very late) negative review.
Motivation:
Though the reviewing process took quite a long time, the comments from the reviewers were very useful for my manuscript. I felt that my manuscript was significantly improved after the revisions. Once again, I am really appreciate all reviewers for their excellent comments.
Motivation:
I was impressed on the quality of the review reports received. The manuscript was hugely improved and also my current work has improved a lot thanks to the many things learned through the review process. The editors looked for many reviewers and were very committed to help improving the work instead of just accept/reject, which is very rare. Overall, the best one could hope for from a publication experience.
Motivation:
Reviewers recommended rejection for mainly "academic" reasons (e.g., data analysis and experimental design not being the most elegant) while acknowledging the timeliness and value of the information presented. Many of the points raised were requests for clarifications/additional information which could have been addressed in a revision in my view.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
Motivation:
The time taken for the process could be shorter. Currently, a 9 months gestation period from manuscript to the published version is a little too long in my opinion.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process took much longer than we expected and what is advertised. Most of the reviews were of good quality and understandable, with only one or two exceptions. One in particular was written in a fundamentally negative attitude that was too superficial to even understand and adress the concerns. The reviewer did not answer when contacted by the administrator for further details. It was somewhat difficult to understand the decisions of the editor because the paper was rejected with encouragement for resubmission even when all reviewers accepted the manuscript for publication, which was already the case in the first review round. Communicating the reject decision and providing only the reviews that recommend an "accept" is only of limited help. Resubmission was more effort compared to other journals because they are treated like new submissions, so that all metadata also needs to be entered again.
Motivation:
A bit slow for a desk rejection, but they are uncomplicated with the submission and explained the unusually high volume of submissions.
Motivation:
Very smooth process through peer reviewer and rapid time to acceptance by editors.
Motivation:
The reject reason was the journal would like to have qualitative studies instead of quantitative ones.
Motivation:
After 3.3 weeks, the CIE directly rejected our manuscript but recommended us transferring it to other two family journals with high impact factor.
Motivation:
Very slow process, low quality external reviews, decision of editor based on wrong assumptions
Motivation:
Generic rejection letter.
"Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low."
"Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low."
Motivation:
The presubmission inquiry is a great system to allow you to decide to format an article for a paper or not. This took ~3 days. During this time I already suggested reviewers to consider. After receiving permission to submit, reviews were rapid and helpful. Love this journal's turn around time!
Motivation:
We got 2 reviews and one of them was less detailed and the reviewer recommended to publish the paper after revision elsewhere. But second reviewer gave very thorough comments and good suggestions for revision and proofread our manuscript as well. So the editor decided to give us opportunity to revise. After major revision the manuscript was sent to the same reviewers and they had additional comments for revision. the manuscript was quickly accepted after the second revision.
Motivation:
Transfer to Nanoscale Advances another Nanoscale family journal with Golden open access was offered.
Motivation:
I was very impressed with the quality of reviews received. The paper was on a specific topic but the editor found reviewers who were very knowledgable about the topic and who were able to provide feedback that genuinely improved the quality of the manuscript. Turnaround time was also relatively fast compared.
Motivation:
The journal was prompt with handling the manuscript and invited reviewers gave very useful feedback which largely improved the paper. I'm very satisfied with this journal and the output.
Motivation:
The decision was fast - which is good. No reason has been given, though, why the paper was did not make a new contribution ("Although we recognise that there are strengths in your submission, unfortunately the editors judged that this paper did not make such a contribution")
15.7 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
At least one of the reviewers does not seem to have read the article (s/he suggested that the article criticized an author that was in fact used as support; s/he suggested irrelevant references, probably his/hers). The second report was not much better. The poor quality of reports is probably related to the fact that after more than 3months, I asked the editor if the decision was coming.
Motivation:
The process was really fast and the reviewer reports were helpful.
Motivation:
One of the reviewer reports was around 200 words and it was not helpful at all. The other was a bit more detailed but it was not worth waiting for 4 months. One expects some constructive comments after waiting that long. I would not send another manuscript there.
Motivation:
The manuscript received a desk reject after 40 days. The rejection was based on small sample size and theoretical framework. Both of them were clearly stated in the abstract. So, I am guessing that it took them more than a month to read the abstract.
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
It is unacceptable to receive two reviews that are shorter than 500 words and of poor quality. It is worrisome that a good journal such as BJPolS accepts such poor quality of reviewers.
So, the reviews were useless and did not even justify rejection, but the editor chose to reject the paper anyway.
So, the reviews were useless and did not even justify rejection, but the editor chose to reject the paper anyway.