Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This submission was hands down the most unprofessional submission I have ever experienced (and I have experienced many). I would never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
The editor made a decision to reject my manuscript based on the feedback from three reviewers.
Reviewer 1 wrote their feedback in Portuguese which was then translated by Google translator into English. If a reviewer is unable to write 254-word review in English, then it is hard to believe that they thoroughly understood a 2912-word manuscript written in English.
Reviewer 2 claimed that there were "A lot of methodological elements have not been adequately described". Those elements were regarding the sample size estimation, the process of recruitment, and the process of data collection. Obviously, these comments could have been revised and addressed through conducting a second round of submission.
Reviewer 3 asked only for a very minor change in the conclusion of the manuscript.
After getting the decision email, I sent an email to the journal editorial office and was hoping that the managing editor would at least acknowledge receiving my email. However, that has not happened.
Overall, this has been one of the worst experiences I have ever had with a scientific journal.
Reviewer 1 wrote their feedback in Portuguese which was then translated by Google translator into English. If a reviewer is unable to write 254-word review in English, then it is hard to believe that they thoroughly understood a 2912-word manuscript written in English.
Reviewer 2 claimed that there were "A lot of methodological elements have not been adequately described". Those elements were regarding the sample size estimation, the process of recruitment, and the process of data collection. Obviously, these comments could have been revised and addressed through conducting a second round of submission.
Reviewer 3 asked only for a very minor change in the conclusion of the manuscript.
After getting the decision email, I sent an email to the journal editorial office and was hoping that the managing editor would at least acknowledge receiving my email. However, that has not happened.
Overall, this has been one of the worst experiences I have ever had with a scientific journal.
Motivation:
review process is incredibly slow.
Motivation:
The very long process only for understanding whether it is suitable for the journal or not!
Motivation:
After one year without any response I had to withdraw my manuscript, the support kept giving me the same answers and the editor was not responding.
Motivation:
Fairly quick and useful reviews. The editorial standard was quite high.
Motivation:
Transferred from another ASM journal after external peer review. Re-reviewed only by a senior editor, who requested a minor revision. Together with the previous round of review, ASM's manuscript handling was overall streamlined and satisfiable.
Motivation:
The article was sent to review and the 4 reviewers provided very deep and useful review reports. The article was then rejected unfortunately, but the review reports were precious to improve my article.
Motivation:
There were two reviewers, who gave their feedback.
The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper.
The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.
The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper.
The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.
Motivation:
Very slow for a desk reject.
Motivation:
Acceptable reviewer quality. Relatively quick action from submission to decision/revision.
Motivation:
Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: pre-submission enquire was not effective in determining the editorial decision. We were invited to submit the full manuscript, which was then rejected without peer-review.
Motivation:
Generally, the reviews were useful. They improved the overall quality of the work. However, the review process, especially for the second round, was very long.
Motivation:
The editor was prompt in all communications and the reviewer feedback was thorough. There was a sexist microaggression in the feedback, which was surprising from a "feminist" journal. Submitting is easy, but the journal does not accurately describe its requirements for authors; the need for "insider" knowledge in order to be competitive was also surprising from a "feminist" journal. I hope they align their stated values to their processes.
Motivation:
I waited for reviewer selection for a long time and I contacted the journal editor asking for an update. However, they told me "your article is under review". Then after waiting another two months, I contacted them again recommending potential reviewers. No reply. I waited one more month and got notified that the paper was withdrawn just because they could not find reviewers.
Motivation:
The work fell into the category that the journal no longer covers, although this is not explicit on the journal scope page.
Motivation:
The time to review was very reasonable, reviews were thoughtful and led to an improved manuscript, and after a revision was submitted, the final acceptance came very quickly.
Motivation:
fair review process done by experts in the field
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
One review suggested revision, the other was rude and suggested rejection. both were rather short (~300 words).
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
The editor was very cooperative and tried to get a third report, but the potential reviewer turned it down.
8.1 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editorial team was helpful when we asked about the review status.
Motivation:
We waited for two years for the first decision. We tried to contact the journal at least seven times but only received an answer in August 2021. The journal wasted our time. It could have had desk rejected our paper and had given us an opportunity to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviewers made very helpful comments and suggested major revision. The editor rejected the manuscript, but the feedback contributed to the improvement of the paper for future submission in another journal.
2.0 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Helpful review process, with many constructive comments made by reviewers. We were given sufficient time to address them, and they helped improve the paper.
Motivation:
It was a very bad experience. After waiting for more than 6 months, the magazine changed the editor twice and did not send me any comments about the manuscript. I have send periodic emails to the co-editor and he did not deal with me professionally. I advise you not to deal with this journal.
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
This process took way too long.