Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first decision and review outcome came almost early. After re-submission, apparently the reviewer 2 did not review the revisions and the manuscript was sent to reviewer three. The process took 4 to 6 months (I have lost the track!)
Reviewer 3 rejected manuscript because he believed it is not in the scope of Trials. Editor specifically anounced that my manuscript IS in the scope of the journal but did nothing to correct the reviewer.
One month later and I'm still waiting for a final decision. Last time i checked, it was reassigned to reviewers.
Reviewer 3 rejected manuscript because he believed it is not in the scope of Trials. Editor specifically anounced that my manuscript IS in the scope of the journal but did nothing to correct the reviewer.
One month later and I'm still waiting for a final decision. Last time i checked, it was reassigned to reviewers.
Motivation:
The editor assigned to the manuscript was very kind in every consultation and responded to each of our questions. The only observation is that the publication process is very slow, from the first contact to the acceptance of the final version. However, the wait was worth it, as the reviewers’ feedback contributed to a substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The manuscript submission was rejected for the reason stated by the editor: 'due to the way we define our scope and gate criteria', and it was returned with one reviewer's comment one month after it was submitted
Motivation:
This experience of this journal was very bad! I do not know why this journal was being slower and worse!!!
Motivation:
My article was first given a “minor revision” decision. After that, I waited from August 2023 to August 2024 for a second minor revision. The article was finally accepted on December 2024.
This means I submitted the article in January 2023, and the final acceptance came in December 2024, with publication in January 2025. In other words, the entire process took nearly two years, which is unacceptable.
For an article with only minor revisions, the expected timeline is usually a few weeks to a few months. Waiting more than a year for a minor revision decision is unusually long and inefficient on the part of the journal.
This means I submitted the article in January 2023, and the final acceptance came in December 2024, with publication in January 2025. In other words, the entire process took nearly two years, which is unacceptable.
For an article with only minor revisions, the expected timeline is usually a few weeks to a few months. Waiting more than a year for a minor revision decision is unusually long and inefficient on the part of the journal.
Motivation:
Thus was first time when I had bad story with ACS journals. First, the manuscript was submitted to ACS Energy Letters, but immediately declined and advised transfer to J. Phys. Chem. I declined this offer and submitted to J. Phys.Chem. Lett instead. Still, it was rejected and advised transferring to J. Phys. Chem. again, which was accepted. The reviewer's report in J. Phys. Chem. Lett. was negative but constructive and fast. J. Phys. Chem. C considered the transferred manuscript 1.5 months, attracting only one reviewer whose report was negative and non-constructive, I would say even biased, since answers to all queries concerning the manuscript were negative, presenting the manuscript as it would not have any merit. Although Editor mentioned "the scientific merit" of the manuscript and offered transfer to ACS Omega, this offer was not accepted in view of the wasted time given for the biased review. Thus, I lost more than 2 months with ACS journals with no constructive outcome. Next time I will be more careful with similar offers regarding transfer to J. Phys. Chem.
Motivation:
The reviews were mostly helpful and contributed to improving the manuscript. However, the editorial process lacked transparency. The status remained “awaiting recommendation” for several months, and inquiries to the journal went unanswered. After we followed up again, the reviews arrived the next day. Previous experiences with this journal had been considerably more efficient.
Motivation:
The editor served no purpose but to simply forward the reviewer comments to the authors and back, leaving the authors at the mercy of a reviewer who refused to accept a certain style of writing. The editor seemed to show no interest in evaluating the manuscript on its merits. Additional revisions were requested after the manuscript was accepted. The quality control team kept asking for nonsensical changes (figures in the main text, figures out of the main text, separate captions included in the PDF, ...), sending communication and manuscript back and forth for several days after each resubmission. The whole process took well over one year, 4-5 rounds of revisions, with only linguistic/textual changes between the initial and final submission.
Motivation:
After revising and resubmitting my paper and a six-page single-spaced memo accompanying the revision I have still not received any response after submitting this material 9 months ago. Multiple emails to the editor and staff have gone unanswered. This is not acceptable.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided constructive and valuable feedback, which I appreciated. However, I found the overall processing time quite long — over four months — and was disappointed that the paper was ultimately rejected despite the positive and helpful reviewer comments. A more transparent and efficient editorial decision process would improve the overall experience.
Motivation:
The first reviewer report was very constructive and positive, more of a minor revision than a major revision. The second report was arguably the worst I've ever read. I genuinely felt insulted that they sent it to me. This second reviewer recommended rejection, and the editor rejected the manuscript based on this very questionable piece of text. I see that the editor wasn't a fan of the text; otherwise it would have gone to a third reviewer. In this case, I would much rather have a desk rejection to avoid wasting four months.
The journal may be more critical compared to other terrorism journals, but I suggest not sending your work if it is truly outside the box.
The journal may be more critical compared to other terrorism journals, but I suggest not sending your work if it is truly outside the box.
Motivation:
The review was extensive and made good suggestions. Reviewer did not reject the paper, but editor did.
8.0 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
At first, I was impressed by how quickly the review process appeared to be moving. However, I noticed that only one reviewer report had been provided in the first round. Following the major revision, I could see on the submission platform that the manuscript had been resent out for peer review and accepted by two reviewers this time.
As the journal is managed through the Springer platform, I was also able to see that neither reviewer had submitted their reports by June 18th. I contacted the editorial office to politely inquire whether a reminder could be sent to the reviewers. I received a generic response, and then, four days later, the manuscript was rejected without any reviewer reports or explanation being provided.
I am therefore confused about how the rejection decision was reached if the manuscript had been sent out for peer review and the reviewer reports had not yet been received. If the manuscript was ultimately considered unsuitable for publication, it seems that this decision could have been made before initiating another round of peer review which wasn't finalized.
As the journal is managed through the Springer platform, I was also able to see that neither reviewer had submitted their reports by June 18th. I contacted the editorial office to politely inquire whether a reminder could be sent to the reviewers. I received a generic response, and then, four days later, the manuscript was rejected without any reviewer reports or explanation being provided.
I am therefore confused about how the rejection decision was reached if the manuscript had been sent out for peer review and the reviewer reports had not yet been received. If the manuscript was ultimately considered unsuitable for publication, it seems that this decision could have been made before initiating another round of peer review which wasn't finalized.
Motivation:
The editor’s work went smoothly, and the manuscripts were processed without delay. The reviewers’ comments were very hard but constructive, and were essential to improving the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was smooth, and the reviewers provided valuable and relevant feedback that helped strengthen the manuscript. Overall, it was a very positive and memorable submission experience.
Motivation:
Good reviews and FAST process. After submitting second revision, it took less than 12 hours to get acceptance mail.
Motivation:
best experience with a top tier journal so far, swift processing and reviewers were excellent and very helpful.
Motivation:
Overall the intermediate updates from the system were useful. While the second round took 10 days, the time between the stage "Revised manuscript received" and "Manuscript send out to reviewers" was almost 6 of those days. And from the stage "Manuscript send out to reviewers" to "Reviewer reports received" was only 3 days.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient, and the reviewers provided positive and constructive feedback that helped improve the quality of the manuscript. Overall, my experience with the journal was very positive, and I would be happy to submit related research to this journal in the future.
Motivation:
While it was disappointing to get a rejection after 3 months in review, the reviews were high quality and improved the manuscript. The reviewers acknowledged the potential in the manuscript as-is but given the scope of edits recommended rejection
Motivation:
The journal provides an efficient review and publication process and is well aligned with the interests of researchers working in this field.
Motivation:
We got three reviews who engaged with the manuscript. Two liked it in principle but suggested clarifications. One reads like (even on re-reading) that they are determined to destroy the paper. It's baffling because the reviewer flags several things where they are actually wrong. Given this very negative review, the editor had no choice and had to reject the paper. Could have been a bit faster overall.
Motivation:
The overall process was smooth. The editor took two weeks to read the manuscript and send it to the reviewers. The review process was efficient; we received the reviewers’ reports within two weeks. The reports were constructive and of high quality.
Motivation:
Process was reasonably fast and transparent overall. One of the reviews was great and showed deep engagement with the paper’s content, but also requested a lot of extra work in the revision. Other review was mediocre.
Motivation:
The editor's thoughtful feedback played an important role in improving the manuscript. Despite the lengthy revision process, the effort was worthwhile, as it led to a much stronger and more satisfactory final product.
Motivation:
The editor was very diligent and supportive and we had the impression that they seriously engaged with the reviewers' comments.
Motivation:
Very fair and gave a good amount of time to respond. Did a good job and iterating the review process to ensure the paper was as good as possible.
Motivation:
Generally quite good. I think the reviewers made some mistakes in their reviews and it would've been nice to be able to reply back to them.
Motivation:
The first round was very fast (less than two months) and both reviewers did a fantastic job in identifying the weaknesses of the manuscript. The second round was slower, and I found that the quality of one of the reviews was not great. After the second resubmission, the manuscript was accepted within a week. Overall I am happy with the journal.