All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). They could make a better choice, though.

Motivation: The review process was fast and fair. Had one reviewer who didn't seem to read the article closely and asked for things that were outside the scope of the paper but that happens everywhere and should not reflect the journal. After the first round of revisions, the first reviewer was satisfied and the second review had only "one tiny comment" in which they said they did not understand a sentence that they had not commented on in the initial review. Instead of a conditional accept, we were given another R&R. Sent it back the same day and it was accepted the next day. Despite this hiccup, it was still an overall good experience publishing with JAH.

Motivation: Reviewers recommended rejection for mainly "academic" reasons (e.g., data analysis and experimental design not being the most elegant) while acknowledging the timeliness and value of the information presented. Many of the points raised were requests for clarifications/additional information which could have been addressed in a revision in my view.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.

Motivation: Overall, the review process took much longer than we expected and what is advertised. Most of the reviews were of good quality and understandable, with only one or two exceptions. One in particular was written in a fundamentally negative attitude that was too superficial to even understand and adress the concerns. The reviewer did not answer when contacted by the administrator for further details. It was somewhat difficult to understand the decisions of the editor because the paper was rejected with encouragement for resubmission even when all reviewers accepted the manuscript for publication, which was already the case in the first review round. Communicating the reject decision and providing only the reviews that recommend an "accept" is only of limited help. Resubmission was more effort compared to other journals because they are treated like new submissions, so that all metadata also needs to be entered again.

Motivation: A bit slow for a desk rejection, but they are uncomplicated with the submission and explained the unusually high volume of submissions.

Motivation: Very smooth process through peer reviewer and rapid time to acceptance by editors.

Motivation: After 3.3 weeks, the CIE directly rejected our manuscript but recommended us transferring it to other two family journals with high impact factor.

Motivation: Generic rejection letter.

"Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low."