Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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!
Motivation:
The initial reviews were part good and useful and part unrealistic. For instance, some errors in the manuscript were correctly reported. However, a large study was also requested as a revision, which would be too big even for multiple papers. A substantial part of the manuscript might not have been properly considered at all, as an obvious but substantial mistake was found by the authors in the resubmission process but was not reported by the reviewers. Perhaps the reviewers did not have expertise in this field of subject? In addition, some rather abitrary reference was requested, which did not really fit to the content of the manuscript but nevertheless included - could be bad practice, if it was a self-reference.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
Motivation:
The reviewers were not unreasonable. The editors were quite prompt at work, too. The only problem was that when it was first submitted that the paper was not reviewed by anyone for several weeks, which I guess was due to the outbreak of covid-19. Otherwise, the total time from initial submission to final decision of accept would have been less than a year instead of 14 months and 3 weeks. But I still find the experience invaluable, and firmly believe that my manuscript was greatly improved thanks to the reviewers.
Motivation:
This journal is extremely fast with the review process. Editor was excellent and review was tough but fair. It took us over 6 months to address all critiques but it was totally worth it, as a result, the manuscript was significantly improved. Following acceptance the paper was available online the same week. I was extremely happy with the review process, but very disappointed with the production process following the acceptance. The proofs were absolutely terrible. Production team made typos in the title, throughout text, figure quality was terrible, and communication with the production team was very difficult. It took us several attempts to get to the agreement and bring the manuscript to the acceptable publication quality.
Motivation:
We submitted around the time of the US holidays, which slows down review in our experience. The first round of review resulted in one reviewer recommending acceptance, one recommending minor revisions, and one recommending rejection. The first decision was a major revision, with the editor distilling the reviewer comments to help us prioritize changes that would lead to acceptance. After revision it was sent out to review again and was accepted by the journal based on the satisfied reviewers' comments. Peer review greatly improved this manuscript and the reviews and the diligence of the editor were exemplary.
Motivation:
We received three reviews. One was openly hostile and recommended rejection, one recommended acceptance, and the other minor revision. Editor ultimately decided the findings lacked novelty. Overall, the reviews were of very high quality, and we were able to address the comments/concerns and publish elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviews I received were poorly written. One of the reviews only consisted of two meaningless sentences just saying that the proposed approach may not work in real world conditions without any further comments. However, I discussed extensively in the paper that this is a first case study to check the general feasibilty.
Motivation:
After the first round, the article had a status of completion of the review for 3 months. We contacted the journal manager twice. Then we wrote to the editor-in-chief and received the article for revision in 1 hour.
Motivation:
The journal did not provide any valuable comments, it just wrote that it was not suitable. Several editors have changed, they have sent apologies that they have lost / forgotten, and so on. A good journal if you're in no rush.
Motivation:
Despite three rounds of revision, the initial manuscript was outright rejected. However, the reviewers were understanding in their first reviews and recommendend to put some more work into the manuscript. This finally caused three more rounds of revision (resubmit, major and minor revisions) and finally the acceptance. I personally think that the paper improved a lot after the initial rejection, but the comments from the major revisions did not contribute to a significantly better paper. The time scale from submission to acceptance was decent, though.
Motivation:
The first reviews were quite okay - one reviewer wanted to publish as is (or minor revisions) and the other decided against publication. In the second round, only a single report was sent, which stated that the revisions were made successfully. The other revisions were rather technical and could have been condensed.
Motivation:
The editor read rather carefully the manuscript and made several positive comments about it. Several, sound, reasons were given for the desk-reject, mainly linked to methodological concerns and some doubts regarding the innovative character of the findings. It is not common for editors to give that much attention to a paper that does not proceed to peer-review, so we are very grateful to the editor for his detailed and constructive feedback. Also, the very fast rejection (within 2 days) was much appreciated, since it allowed us to ressubmit the paper to a more suitable journal.
Motivation:
Initial round of review took 5 months due to a late reviewer. The editor waited for months before finding someone else.
Motivation:
I was very pleased with the quality of reviews. The submission site provides very coarse updates for the status of the manuscript, making it hard to tell the true status and source of holdup.
Motivation:
Reviewer is poor in conducting a review, being not understand how to use nomenclature and not properly read sample naming and claiming no explanation about equation and sample naming. Reviewer also seems not understand the field but force their self to do a review.