Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process was straightforward, review time reasonable, feedback meaningful and constructive, processing and publication effective and efficient.
Motivation:
Smooth process, useful review and overall quick progress towards publication.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were constructive but did not make sense to the research question. The reviewer had his own questions in mind and suggested different studies.
Motivation:
The editor accepted the paper without peer review. I asked for information about this decision, but I never received an answer or explanation. I withdrew the article because of the journal’s poor professionalism.
Motivation:
The manuscript was with the editor for more than six months without any advancement. The editors ignored the corresponding author and refused to provide updates, but were very quick to respond when we decided to withdraw the manuscript. The editorial team never owned up to their unprofessionalism. Not recommended.
Motivation:
Incredibly slow process. An 11 month turnaround time is simply unacceptable. The explanation provided by the journal was that they had trouble finding reviewers, but this was only provided in response to an enquiry after I had heard nothing from the journal for 7 months. Two of the three reviewers made sensible suggestions that will improve the quality of the paper. However reviewer 3 made a point that failed to engage with the existing research referenced in the paper arguing that the piece was deficient for not investigating the impact of an independent variable that has been shown to have no significant impact on the dependent variable in recent research conducted on the same case study. A competent reviewer should at least acknowledge the findings of existing research cited in the paper. Overall the quality of the reviews would not deter me from submitting to the journal in future, but the extremely lengthy turnaround time will.
Motivation:
Very, very slow first round review, and then we only received one reviewer report.
Motivation:
It was a pleasant experience overall. The first review round took more than a year, but this is typical for mathematical journals.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews has been waiting for a long time. Once we sent a query to the editor about the status of the paper, only then did the paper go for review. Everything else is fine. The four reviews were useful and contributed significantly to the improvement of the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow.
Motivation:
Reviewers and Editor(s) asked for changes without significance. I think most of it was made using AI tools.
Motivation:
The review process was very long. Changing the reviewers led to conflicting opinions.
The journal's editor-in-chief was professional and cooperative.
The journal's editor-in-chief was professional and cooperative.
Motivation:
This journal sucks, and I am sorry for the people that published here or maybe some people had betetr experiences than mine. But the journal is a piece of trash. Reviewers are meh, EDITORS ARE IDIOTS WITH HUGE EGOS. They have HUGE problems with their board! . I will not write all the problems I had with them, but to me this journal should be removed forever from Elsevier. Is trash!
Motivation:
One reviewer said '... only combimee A and B ... no speicific ... trivial framework.' (yes, combimee and speicific) in one sentence, with no more reason, giving a rejection. While the other praised my paper at first, then wanted me to add a lot of work just to cite his 2 papers, suggesting a major revision. Submitting to this journal is a waste of time. To my fellow researchers: do not blindly submit here just for the fast turnaround. This 'speed' appears to be driven by editorial KPIs rather than anything else.
Motivation:
It took the editor some time to locate suitable reviewers, but it was probably because of the topic of my work. The editorial office has been responsive to my inquiry emails.
Motivation:
The review process was too long (5 months), and we ended up having only one reviewer.
The reviewer made relevant comments and asked for more precision and explanations about the reasoning. Then, the editor rejected the paper outright without any more explanations, forwarding R1's comment.
The reviewer made relevant comments and asked for more precision and explanations about the reasoning. Then, the editor rejected the paper outright without any more explanations, forwarding R1's comment.
Motivation:
Extremely satisfied with the review process. The Editor-in-Chief was accessible and pleasant to interact with, and the Associate Editor was equally approachable and demonstrated a genuine interest in the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments, as well as those from the Associate Editor, reflected a strong level of engagement and rigor, and contributed substantially to improving the quality of the manuscript.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience, with a reasonable review and timing.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience overall. The quality of the review was high. However, the second review round (after a minor revision, with no further comments) took more than a year.
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.