Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
During the process, the status has remained in『waiting for reviewer selection』for more than two months. I understand that lacking reviewers are prevalent now. Reviewers generally read carefully and gave helpful comments.
Motivation:
Very quickly, good
Motivation:
We received a conditional acceptance with minor revision after one round of revision. And then the editor went silent for eight months after we submitted the final version. We tried to contact the editor at least three times but received no responses during this eight-month period. We finally talked to the website manager to get a response. And then the editor informed us that we needed to transfer the article to its sister journal newly founded in 2021, otherwise the paper would be rejected because it was no longer suited for the journal. This is the treatment we got from this journal. Also, this paper is led by a graduate student and basically one year has been wasted for her, which made this experience even worse. I would not recommend this journal to my colleagues.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected at Cell Reports, due to a clearly unreasonable reviewer. The Cell Reports editor communicated with the iScience editor and encouraged us to send the manuscript there. We did so, and the iScience editor find one more reviewer to review our revisions (for the comments raised by the Cell Reports reviewers). It was accepted quickly
Motivation:
Very professional and efficient review process. This paper was a short peer reviewed Editorial, so this likely contributed to the rapid peer review and editorial speeds. Nonetheless an excellent publishing experience.
Motivation:
They just said "your manuscript be submitted to another outlet for which it may be a better fit". That is not constructive or fair. Also, my topic fit them.
Motivation:
Invited review. Excellent handling and fast. However, receiving the proofs and formatted PDF for review took a very long time.
Motivation:
It is not the fastest review I have experienced. The quality of the review was average. However, it is still acceptable, the editorial time is responsive, and the review process is within what they expect. I will recommend submitting here if you are not in a rush.
Motivation:
Quality of review was good, and suggestions for improvements mostly were clear and relevant.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Response was very slow in both review rounds. Too bad the first response came right before the Summer vacation period, reason why it took us 12 weeks to respond.
Motivation:
The chief editor handled the manuscript very efficiently, and it was sent to the external review on the same day after submission. We got a response after about three weeks and the questions weren't difficult to reply. Our manuscript was accepted after resubmited for two days.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to reviewers very quickly. Although the reviews were mixed, with one proposing minor revisions and others raising issues that could be handled within a revision, the editors explained their rejection well and even proposed a prioritization of the reviewers' comments and suggested outlets to sent the manuscript next to.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround. Excellent review process.
Motivation:
considered a quit decision.
Motivation:
Originally we submitted the manuscript to Green Chemistry, but it was rejected by the Editor for "low green advance", who suggested to transfer it to RSC Advances. We agreed with the transfer and the manuscript was eventually published in the latter journal. During the review process one Reviewer (out of 2) was not very positive, so we had to rebut his arguments. The Editor agreed with our stance.
Motivation:
We submitted the manuscript to Materials Characterization, but within a week the Editor recommended to transfer it to Materials Today Communications. We agreed with the transfer, although it required some adjustments to the text. Eventually it was published in the latter journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was transferred to Materials Today Communications. The Reviewers were well qualified, just one of them supplied 33 comments, each of them requiring quite significant effort.
Motivation:
There is no serious reviewing in my opinion
Motivation:
The editor wrongly stated that relevant information was not provided.
The editor claimed that raw data and materials were not made available, although an osf repository where these data could be downloaded was linked in the submission mail and the article itself.
The editor also asked us to provide descriptive data analyses which would not have been suitable for the type of data in our studies.
The editor claimed that raw data and materials were not made available, although an osf repository where these data could be downloaded was linked in the submission mail and the article itself.
The editor also asked us to provide descriptive data analyses which would not have been suitable for the type of data in our studies.
Motivation:
Editorial decisions were fast; referees' comments very helpful. Overall a good experience.
Motivation:
The first round took a little longer than expected, and the few comments of the two reviewer were constructive but rather superficial. The time between resubmission and decision was quite short.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing time, I would not recommend publishing in this journal.
Motivation:
This was the second time for me to have my manuscript published in this journal. The two manuscripts underwent a substantial revision which improved the quality of science greatly. I should appreciate those comments from editors and reviewers in the journal.
Motivation:
It took us quite a long time to receive initial response, but than the process was quick. The reviewer's comments were useful and helped us to improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
The whole process took exceedingly long (nearly 9 months in the first round and > 6 months to process the revision) and in the meantime it was near impossible to get updates about what was happening behind the scenes. For the initial review an editor was found but they withdrew at some point, but we were never made aware of this happening. Most of my requests to the administration/editor in chief/handling editor went unanswered. Few months after the revision was submitted the handling editor (wrongly) seemed to be under the impression that we had not written a response letter to the reviewers, which I found very concerning. The final rejection was based on an entirely new reviewer (only one..). Overall the worst experience I have ever had at a journal due to 1) extreme slowness 2) no communication whatsoever and 3) final rejection seemed very much at odds with the opinion the editor had after the first round of reviews. Would not recommend anyone to submit to this journal.
Motivation:
Initial editorial assessment was rapid after one month. The peer review process was slow but the production process was smooth and excellent.
Motivation:
The process was speedy and relatively painless. Reviewer 2 was extremely brief, but this was in part because they liked the paper. Reviewer 1 and the editor were detailed and constructive.