Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rejecting a paper after a revision because the contribution to the filed is not sufficient is very disappointing. Why did you ask for a revision indeed?
Motivation:
Our paper was rejected, but the response was quite quick and we received useful comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Three reviewers indicating excitement about the results and some suggestions for improvement didn't cut it this time.
Motivation:
We waited for 3 months before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers (we had to provide an additional list of reviewers).
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Grateful for the clear and convincing report on the submitted manuscript. The report contains a short summary of the manuscript, points out some exposition problems, explains why the choice of the journal was not appropriate, contains suggestions on text improvement and journal choice. So trying this journal was useful for the author.
Motivation:
My paper was rejected based on a single review report. The reviewer devoted just a few lines to express his/her evaluation, pointing out some issues which could be easily tackled. I am very disappointed about the way in which the manuscript was handled by the associated editor. In the rejection letter he wrote, after more than 4 months from the initial submission, that the manuscript does not fit with the aims of the journal. Before to write this review, I wrote a complain letter to the editor, expressing all my disappointment in receiving just a single (superficial) report review limited to a few lines and in being informed afyer more than 4 months that my manuscript was not appropriate for the aims of the journal. Why didn't he informed me earlier with an immediate rejection? His answer was very generic and he did not reply properly, explianing his choices (e.g., "we receive many papers more competing than yours". Ok, no problems about this, but still, why didn't he reject immediately the manuscript?). I never will submit another manuscript to this journal, there are more professional outlets and it is not my intention to waste further time with unprofessional editors like that.
Motivation:
The initial review was pretty slow (took 3 months) but otherwise the manuscript was handled well. It has been much improved by now.
Motivation:
The received reviews were constructive and very helpful. We actually enjoyed the professional discussion with the reviewers. Unfortunately, Cell Reports does not offer to publish the reviews alongside the paper. The editor was professional and handled the paper well. The worst part of our experience with this journal were the waiting times. While multiple rounds of review naturally do take some time, every resubmission undergoes a technical screening before the paper is forwarded to the handling editor again. This process seems to take 2-5 days, so for multiple rounds of revision and resubmission, you easily lose half a month. While a technical screen for initial submissions and maybe even major revisions is reasonable, I feel this is unnecessary for minor revisions.
Motivation:
Communication with the editorial office was quick and, to our surprise, a single revision was sufficient. In general, the review process helped to improve our manuscript and prevent possible misconceptions through marginal adjustments. However, the effort for the direct responses was substantial as the submission was evaluated by four reviewers, out of which one was clearly outside the research field and another one challenged every single claim and provided 17 major requests (despite rating our work as highly significant). Given this effort, we would have appreciated it if the final publication would have been accompanied by the peer review correspondence.
Motivation:
Slow editorial process - the first decision had two reviewers' comments plus those from two editors, feedback was very helpful but was informed it would be a resubmission, not a revision. However next stage was much faster and even though classed major revisions were more or less editorial changes that again improved the manuscript. Overall I am happy with the revisions process and the editors and the outcome was a much-improved text, apart from that the decisions to first ask for a resubmission may be more to keep the rejection rate up and I thought the decision-making process could be faster as per the other comments here.
Motivation:
Our manuscript spent nearly 6 weeks in limbo. I wrote to the managing editor at two and a half weeks and she told me that it was awaiting initial assessment from the editors. I wrote a week later, got no response, wrote after a month and then the managing editor forwarded my email to the scientific editor. I got no response from him, nor when I wrote to him again directly twice. This was a transfer from Science, where the paper had spent a month before being rejected and had been sent out to advisors, so had some assessment material with it that I had thought would make analysis faster.
Motivation:
Desk rejection for being out of scope. However, the journal’s webpage and the Elsevier journal finder suggested otherwise.
Motivation:
Generic desk rejection. Lack of scientific novelty/contribution.
Authors could not follow this motivation.
Authors could not follow this motivation.
Motivation:
Desk rejection. Topic was not sufficiently broad for the journal.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected by the editor arguing that it was out of the scope of the journal. That is fair, the decision was well-argued and polite, but it would be better if a desk rejection did not take that much time.
Motivation:
It's in our out at this journal. While I disagree with the justification provided, I do appreciate that there is some feedback from the editors.
Motivation:
Good experience this time and every other time I have submitted to this journal.
Motivation:
The editor was very supportive of our submission and we received several updates on the review process, including explanations regarding delays. Unfortunately, the requests received by one of the reviewers were severely biased. Nevertheless, the extensive revision, in general, allowed us to improve the manuscript significantly.
To our surprise, compared to other journals, the editorial requests concerning the preparation of the manuscript for publication were rather extensive, i.e. adjustments that had to be performed by the authors, especially considering the journal's high APC.
To our surprise, compared to other journals, the editorial requests concerning the preparation of the manuscript for publication were rather extensive, i.e. adjustments that had to be performed by the authors, especially considering the journal's high APC.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was a competitor and with the irrelevant to the article comments he strongly recommended reject. The editor should have sent the article to a third reviewer and should have understand that the review is biased based. The other review was really low quality. Nothing to the point.