Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
quick desk rejection
Motivation:
Clear evidence of an editorial review, lack of space as the main reason, plus a sentence of feedback (which is more than what we get from most desk rejections)
Motivation:
Surprisingly extensive feedback on the reason for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
suggested a different journal
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and gave us a fair chance to answer all of the critiques. She seemed very committed to helping us improve the quality of our manuscript. The handling process was rather quick. A couple of times the submission system rejected our files due to technical checks that felt arbitrary and were not explained well by the error notification, but otherwise all was good journal-wise.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
Motivation:
One referee report was extremely short, and the overall process took relatively long.
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
The immediate decision was fast without wasting time.
Motivation:
Excellent comments on the manuscript have been given by the associated editor.
Motivation:
Firstly, very long review time that is inconsistent with the advertised first decisitime. Secondly, from the two reviews one was accept after revisions while praising the work. The second review was reject by a reviewer unfamiliar with the analytical method who only argued that he doesnsee audience interest! The editor with no third review or any explanation rejected too. Overall such a waste of time. It used to be a great journal a few years ago. By the way manuscript accepted in a higher if journal later. Save your 2 month time and send to another journal
Motivation:
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. In such a case the case for the reject should be a bit more detailed than a standard desk rejection
Motivation:
Just a quick add-on comment:
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.
Motivation:
The editor offered us a direct transfer to a sister journal.
Motivation:
2 reviewers: Major Revision
1 reviewer: Reject & Resubmit
1 reviewer: Reject
editor outcome: reject since he/she thought that it needs more time than a normal time for major revision.
1 reviewer: Reject & Resubmit
1 reviewer: Reject
editor outcome: reject since he/she thought that it needs more time than a normal time for major revision.
Motivation:
Reviews were short and too general. Reviewer 2 basically suggests we read and cite two papers that were not relevant to our work.
Motivation:
The editor is very responsible, and the manuscript processing speed is also very fast. The opinions of the review experts are very professional. After two revisions, the quality of the article has been greatly improved, and the article was received smoothly.
Motivation:
The review reports we have received were great: detailed, useful, polite, and encouraging acceptance after the reasonable revisions. The communication with the editor was pretty good as well. However, we also feel that the process should have been shorter: receiving the reviews took the time (e.g. more than a month after revising the paper appropriately and agreeing to nearly all the comments of the reviewers), and on a few occasions the editor's turnaround was not very quick (e.g. it took a few weeks to send the paper for review).
Motivation:
The review comments was very informative and useful.
Motivation:
One month and a half is a very long time for a desk reject.
Motivation:
The duration of the first review took 8 months, that is very long. From the 3 review reports received, 2 of them were very positive and constructive whilst the third reviewer was very negative and very rude. His criticism was not based on the scientific content of the manuscript but rather on what he thought was appropriate to address in the article.
Motivation:
I submitted our paper as a "Presubmission Inquiry". The editor(s) responded very quickly, and pointed out that they don't think our paper would be "broadly useful to the community" and recommended against a full-fledged submission. Overall, the process saved a lot of our time and the editors' and reviewers'.