Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My experience is in accordance with other reviews here. The review process is very slow and the communication with the journal is not good. Our submitted manuscript was sent for peer review and we received reports after 5 months. We resubmitted the revised manuscript within 2.5 weeks addressing all the comments. We felt that one reviewer report was very professional, the other reviewer was not experienced in the field. Afterwards, something surprising happened. We received comments from two _new_ reviewers. Their comments requested the exact opposite as the first two reviewers. Our manuscript was rejected. I would not submit here again. It is a waste of time with poor communication. I may add that our manuscript was sent back once randomly: a person in the editorial office hit the wrong button (and apologized for it). I would not recommend BMC Public Health.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for external peer review fast. We received comments from 3 reviewers. The comments helped us to improve the quality of the article. We were asked to revise the methodology and statistical part of the manuscript. The handling editor responded quickly.
Motivation:
I cannot believe how incompetent IEEE Access were. It took us more than 11months to get through the peer review process. After the first peer review round (that took almost 4 months), we addressed the reviewers comments. After resubmitting the manuscript, the paper was went to one of the same reviewers who outright said it is acceptable for publication without any further edits. The second reviewer asked us to add one reference and to reorganize a paragraph. The editor still recommended revising and resubmission. We implemented the changes and sent it again for review. However after we sent it, the peer reviewing process took 5+ months. We contacted the journals more than 4 times and every time, we got a reply saying that the reviewers are still reviewing the changes, without further clarifications.
IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.
Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.
After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.
Very bad publication experience.
IEEE access usually gives the reviewers 10-14 days to review articles, so this was completely uncommon.
Also, the reasons why the editor rejected the manuscript, while all reviewers accepted it were unknown and we never got a response on why this decision was made.
After all this hassle, we finally decided to withdraw our manuscript and send it to another journal.
Very bad publication experience.
16.0 weeks
39.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews is fine. However, I experienced the review process as rather slow (especially 2nd and 3rd round which were only minor changes). Also the period after acceptance took more than 4 months.
Motivation:
Long revision process but after one round of revision it was accepted. Initial comments were helpful but one reviewer misunderstood the manuscript. After revisions the manuscript has improved significantly and all three reviewers were satisfied.
Motivation:
Fast handling. No complaints.
Motivation:
We don't have a response yet, 1 year after submission, even after contacting the Editor.
Motivation:
Almost two months for desk rejection.
Motivation:
Very fast handling. Totally recommend it.
Motivation:
The handling was fast. One reviewer highly recommended it with lots of compliments. The other one criticized it, was skeptical, and said there are no clinical and in vivo data yet, which is not entirely true.
Motivation:
This was a transfer from Advanced Materials. The same negative reviewer was called, and the manuscript rejected.
Motivation:
Very fast handling.
Motivation:
The reviewers spent a lot of time giving very clear and helpful constructive criticism. The process was fair. I needed to make a lot of changes during the first revision but the editor let me have a year and then extended it when I asked (covid-related delays to work). The changes made absolutely improved the paper.
Motivation:
Timely and promptly replied to my queries and actions were taken when needed.
Motivation:
Courteous editor letter with some constructive comments.
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed and of high quality and helped improve the manuscript.
Communicating with the journal was easy and the process was clear.
Communicating with the journal was easy and the process was clear.
Motivation:
The statement informing us about the editorial decision was very short and not helpful for future submissions.
7.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer quality was good. Their paper submission and tracking system is convenient.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by Surface and Coatings Technology, but after we submitted almost the same thing to another Q1 journal, it was accepted.
Motivation:
I don't recommend sending articles to Millennium except for special issues because their editors change every year. So, I think what probably happened in my case is that the previous editor liked the manuscript enough to send it for review but the new editor didn't like it. So, I have received really good reviewer reports with the first decision and revised the article as best as possible. However, the article was rejected in the next round with comments from one new reviewer and supposedly one of the old ones. I don't know how was the old reviewer's report because they didn't even send it to me, they just wrote 'see attached file' but there was no file. The new reviewer thought that the article was interesting but suggested me to write a completely different article (based on completely different data and methodology).
It was obvious to me that the new editor didn't like the paper and would have desk rejected it. Since the editors change every year, you have to convince two different editorial teams that your paper is worth publishing which doesn't really worth the trouble. Plus, the journal is really slow. It took me nine months what would be a desk reject in a couple of weeks with another journal. And with all due respect, the fact that all editors are PhD students and they are in charge for only one year means that you will have to deal with very unexperienced editors. So, maybe it is better to send your work here if you are already established in your field and want to support the idea of a journal run by graduate students. I would recommend staying away if you are an early career researcher.
It was obvious to me that the new editor didn't like the paper and would have desk rejected it. Since the editors change every year, you have to convince two different editorial teams that your paper is worth publishing which doesn't really worth the trouble. Plus, the journal is really slow. It took me nine months what would be a desk reject in a couple of weeks with another journal. And with all due respect, the fact that all editors are PhD students and they are in charge for only one year means that you will have to deal with very unexperienced editors. So, maybe it is better to send your work here if you are already established in your field and want to support the idea of a journal run by graduate students. I would recommend staying away if you are an early career researcher.