Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We were very disappointed in the review process of this journal. The quality of the review process and handling was poor and we are having difficulty understanding why there is such a long delay in obtaining feedback about our rebuttal to the review of our manuscript.
They rejected our first draft and then we added some details and we enhanced the manuscript by performing more in-depth analyses then we submitted our response to the reviewer and it has to wait 4 months before we hear back from them.
The response was even more shocking: ' For some reason, unknown to me, the letter informing you of the decision (reject without review) was not sent, despite being drafted'.
We would have appreciated knowing the plans and the expected timing.
They rejected our first draft and then we added some details and we enhanced the manuscript by performing more in-depth analyses then we submitted our response to the reviewer and it has to wait 4 months before we hear back from them.
The response was even more shocking: ' For some reason, unknown to me, the letter informing you of the decision (reject without review) was not sent, despite being drafted'.
We would have appreciated knowing the plans and the expected timing.
Motivation:
Very useful, detailed and clear review that has significantly influenced the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers are professional and strict. Their comments really help we improve our article. This journal is worth submitting high-quality, cutting-edge manusripts.
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed for 5 months, where they said that it was not very suitable for the Journal. We received one review that was general and did not serve the authors to improve the paper.
Motivation:
After one year and four months of our initial submission, at least we expected a little respect for what we've done. The paper was revised and resubmitted, and the editor simply rejected the paper based on arguments from previous revisions. We answered all questions raised by reviewers and aligned the paper accordingly to the suggestions formulated and approximately after seven months the editor made copied parts from the last revision and rejected the paper. You'll notice that the editor from IJTM is also an editor for several inderscience journals, but this is not an excuse to do not respect authors and their work. Don't waste your time with IJTM or with other inderscience journals edited by the same person.
Motivation:
8 months after submission, we received two reviews. One was positive, the other had criticisms that were subjective, minor, or readily addressed. The paper was rejected without the opportunity to revise or address the criticisms. We submitted it to another journal with a similar impact factor. It was reviewed there in 3 weeks. We revised to address minor suggestions from the reviewers. It was published 9 weeks after the initial submission to the second journal.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers comments included both major and minor points and addressing them helped make the manuscript better. The handling time of the paper overall was pretty quick so I am happy with that.
Motivation:
The duration, review comments and expectations were very realistic.
Motivation:
Reviewers reports were very constructive and highly supportive. It took us much effort to address all their (relevant) questions, and overall these novel results signifantly improved the manuscript. The review process was smooth (with regular updates from the editorial office) and constructive.
Motivation:
In fact, the reviewers´ comments could have been addressed in a reasonable manner and time frame, yet the paper was rejected. Hence, it was not clear to us why, if the revisions were reasonable, we were not given the opportunity to respond. However, communication with the Editorial team was fluent and overall good experience.
Motivation:
Submission was easy and standard. The waiting time was very long, almost 3 months. After more than two months I got an email apologizing for the delay and that they were waiting for the second review. That review never came and the editors instead of sending it to a new reviewer decided to better reject the manuscript. Terrible editorial job.
Motivation:
All in all it took more than a year from submission to publication. The manuscript went through 3 round of reviews, mostly due to one very antagonistic referee that simply should have not been allowed to judge our paper. The reviews became more and more aggressive, to the point that we were accused to doctoring the images (by selecting one very specific timestep in our simulation that would prove our point). Instead of controlling these exchanges, the editor blatantly sided with the referee, supporting the changes he was suggesting and never moderating the conversation (at least not that we could see).
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
Motivation:
Desk rejection.
Motivation:
Good timing, responsive editors and great reviewing process but the strict figure, table and word count limits can go in the way of accurate scientific reporting and readability.
Motivation:
Fast decision
Motivation:
The editorial process was faster than I expected and the editor was really responsive.
Motivation:
The Journal reject my work after 4 months, while 1 reviewer suggest it to be published, and the other one only suggest reject with one sentence that the work does not related to the journal. I do not know, whether really it needs 4 month for the reviewr to understand that the paper does not match with the journal?
I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles:
"Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
No Recommendation is made for this paper.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value.
This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate.
Reviewer 3
Comments to the author
The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented.
This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."
I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles:
"Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
No Recommendation is made for this paper.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value.
This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate.
Reviewer 3
Comments to the author
The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented.
This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."
Motivation:
3 of the 4 reviewers had blank responses. I cannot even rule out that the journal is predatory at this point.
Motivation:
Editorial rejection after 7 weeks and 4 reviewers. 3 reviewers evaluated the paper positively, only one recommended rejection without any constructive comment. After an appeal (and sending the manuscript in its revised form addressing the 3 reviewers' comments), the paper got ultimately rejected after several days by the EIC. Sad story.
Motivation:
The review process was particularly fast, probably because it was for a special issue related to a workshop.