Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This is a very professional journal with strong reviewers and a straight workflow.
Reviewers' comments were pertinent and improved the paper's quality.
I would submit here again.
Reviewers' comments were pertinent and improved the paper's quality.
I would submit here again.
2.6 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Excellent communication with the journal editors, high quality peer review process. The acceptance to print time was long but that's because Nature Energy seem to put considerably more effort into the aesthetics of their articles.
Immediately accepted after 3.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The revision based on the comments from two Reviewers significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers' comments were appropriate and pointed out reasonable points for improvement. The text was improved by their suggestions, which were largely in line with each other. P
Motivation:
Most of the comments raised by the reviewers were already explained or figures were present in the supplementary materials. Reviewers seemed subjective and even stated wrong literature information. It was a poor handling of the manuscript and it took more than two months.
Motivation:
The processing time was very long, although I could track the overall progress using the new Elsevier tracking tool. Most of the 'Review' time was spent on Reviewer #2 who did not seem very interested in this paper. That Reviewer submitted one short comment following the first round of reviews stating that they didn't believe the problem was posed correctly but presented no evidence. However, Reviewer #1, obviously an expert in this field, was very thorough and considerate and suggested useful additions to the manuscript. I waited for about 1.5 months before the Editor communicated their final decision to me but no reviewer comments came through, it was just an 'accept' letter.
Motivation:
The most surprising thing was that the journal needed 1 month to assign the paper to an editor, that we never know who she/he was. Then, although the information on the website read as "review received" the editorial decision was not made until one month later.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 69.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript has been sitting with the editor for a couple of months; then, we sent a message offering help finding reviewers with no answer. So, we decided to withdraw.
Motivation:
The review process took more than usual timeframe but it was worth the wait as the peer-review was so detailed and helped a lot to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The handling editor recommended to reject the article after one month of review, but for some bizarre reason his decision was not finalized in the website. We had to wait 2 more months to get the final decision.
Motivation:
Rigorous review process. Managed to convince one reviewer of our approach.
Motivation:
Rejection after many, many months under review, and based on biased, technically incorrect reviews, because a paper "cannot compete for space" is signs of gross editorial failure (without even mentioning the dubious papers that do manage to compete for space). The review process here is not objective and has no connection to science.
Motivation:
The review process could be faster. The reviewers comments were overall very good, so the rejection was a little unexpected.
Motivation:
Very bad review process, with different types of bias and personal attacks
Motivation:
Not recommended. Manuscript sent out to different reviewers multiple times; extensive periods of time "awaiting Editor decision"... 1.5 years later and still waiting.
Motivation:
Both reviewers acknowledged the novelty and importance of the work but recognized some problems with methodology. If the editor was knowledgeable enough in the subject area, they would have been able to make a much better decision as the methodological problems were contrived and easily remedied by re-writing for clarity.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected by the associate editor because we were falsely accused of being arrogant and ignorant. The first reviewer who made these accusations also portrayed himself/herself as an expert, but sentence after sentence in the review was false and can be proven false. The review was set up to make us look as if we were attacking the scientific community, and the associate editor bought into it. So disturbing!
4.9 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The journal provides a swift and clear pathway to process the manuscript submission. It was a good experience to submit my work to this journal with constructive feedback.