Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My comments on a paper published in QJEP, to which I previously had been a reviewer for other journals, were summarily rejected by the editor-in-chief. Although she claimed to have carefully read the comment, she showed no knowledge of its content. Other considerations, which were not explained to me, must have played a role.
Motivation:
The journal took a really long time in finding someone to review the manuscript. When they eventually found a reviewer, the reviewer regrettably later abandoned the review. So they had to find another reviewer. They were quite friendly though and kept me informed as to what was occurring. I realize the review process in my case is almost certainly an outlier.
Motivation:
Nice and quick comments. After this article was suspended for a long time.
Motivation:
I appreciate the speed, and very much the fact that the editor responded in depth to my inquiries. I do however find the trend towards regarding non mammalian model organisms as second class to be very short sighted. If the bar is much much higher to publish in these organisms, the publishing industry is essentially driving groups that work on these things out of business. The in vivo rigor that such inquiries provide will thus be increasingly lost from the scientific enterprise.
Motivation:
Even though one of the first reviewer reports was really biased, and even offensive, the editor was really cooperative and provided me with solid advice. The publication was timely. Recommended!
Motivation:
Completely random process. Change of reviewers in the middle of the review process, editor is fully out of her depth and was not able to consolidate conflicting demands. Really, really bad communication. Will never submit here again and also inform my peers.
Motivation:
The editor seems to solely relying on reviewers’ comments and didn’t consider the authors’ arguments. 2 out of 3 reviewer were not qualified to judge the paper given the questions asked.
Motivation:
Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.
Motivation:
The reviewers were very thorough with their reviews and pointed out the methodological flaws with our study, which we were able to address. I especially liked the way the manuscript was handled by the editor.
Motivation:
I think it is better if IJHRM keep the first review response within 6 months (at maximum) and invite more reviewers for collective viewpoints from various perspectives with the expertise in field. It is normal that a high ranking journal receives 3 or 4 reviewers for a paper. The longer review process makes us tired and costs us the opportunity to pursue publication with other journal.
Motivation:
Dreadful submission process. Poor communication with the editorial office. The manuscript was desk-rejected more than a month after submission, precisely a day after a follow-up inquiry of the status of the submission was made.
Motivation:
the EIC think that the paper is too specific to business area, not general enough to social study
Motivation:
The Editor rejected our manuscript due to "insufficient green advancement", although in our opinion the positive impact on biodiesel plants could be very significant
Motivation:
It was for a special covid issue. Reviewers were fast and fair. Overall good process as have been my previous experiences with this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewer reports were very respectful and constructive. They helped me to present my research in an improved way.
Motivation:
The first decision was to make major changes. According to the author, one reviewer is not too competent for certain concepts for which he asked questions, and despite the explanation by the author, he did not understand the concept. After revising the paper according to the reviewers' suggestions, one reviewer proposed major changes again while another reviewer rejected the paper. The editor decided to reject the paper. The reviews did not help to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and constructive, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of our initial submission. The reviewers focused on the important technical issues regarding our analyses (already a cause of disagreement among the co-investigators before manuscript submission) which prodded the study authors to a reasonable/defensible position.
The only problematic aspect is the relatively long waiting time from submission to notification of first editorial decision, taking 12 weeks which is way above the journal's reported median time for this period of ~4-5 weeks, thus downgrading my response from "5 (Excellent)" to "4."
The only problematic aspect is the relatively long waiting time from submission to notification of first editorial decision, taking 12 weeks which is way above the journal's reported median time for this period of ~4-5 weeks, thus downgrading my response from "5 (Excellent)" to "4."
Motivation:
3 out of 4 reviewers were describing the paper being well-written and explicitly mention the novelty of the submitted work in their reviews. One of these reviewers had several questions/suggestions that could be answered and addressed by the authors.
On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable.
No logic behind this rejection by the editor!
On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable.
No logic behind this rejection by the editor!