Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I don't recommend sending articles to Millennium except for special issues because their editors change every year. So, I think what probably happened in my case is that the previous editor liked the manuscript enough to send it for review but the new editor didn't like it. So, I have received really good reviewer reports with the first decision and revised the article as best as possible. However, the article was rejected in the next round with comments from one new reviewer and supposedly one of the old ones. I don't know how was the old reviewer's report because they didn't even send it to me, they just wrote 'see attached file' but there was no file. The new reviewer thought that the article was interesting but suggested me to write a completely different article (based on completely different data and methodology).
It was obvious to me that the new editor didn't like the paper and would have desk rejected it. Since the editors change every year, you have to convince two different editorial teams that your paper is worth publishing which doesn't really worth the trouble. Plus, the journal is really slow. It took me nine months what would be a desk reject in a couple of weeks with another journal. And with all due respect, the fact that all editors are PhD students and they are in charge for only one year means that you will have to deal with very unexperienced editors. So, maybe it is better to send your work here if you are already established in your field and want to support the idea of a journal run by graduate students. I would recommend staying away if you are an early career researcher.
It was obvious to me that the new editor didn't like the paper and would have desk rejected it. Since the editors change every year, you have to convince two different editorial teams that your paper is worth publishing which doesn't really worth the trouble. Plus, the journal is really slow. It took me nine months what would be a desk reject in a couple of weeks with another journal. And with all due respect, the fact that all editors are PhD students and they are in charge for only one year means that you will have to deal with very unexperienced editors. So, maybe it is better to send your work here if you are already established in your field and want to support the idea of a journal run by graduate students. I would recommend staying away if you are an early career researcher.
Motivation:
Too much time passed between submitting the article until we were told they were out of space and that it did not fit well with the scope of the magazine.
Motivation:
The turnaround times for reviews was excellent. The online review forum was useful
Motivation:
The handling is fast and correct.
Motivation:
The web platform of the Journal is unrefined, and complex to interpret. Communication on the stages of the review is lacking. Proofs were problematic too.
56.4 weeks
138.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers were very professional and their comments were very constructive. However, the overall journal duration from submission to acceptance is very not commendable. I do not recommend this journal if you want a fast publication of your manuscript.
Motivation:
The editors responded always very quickly.
The reviews itself were very helpful including helpful references. I learned a lot during the review process.
The reviews itself were very helpful including helpful references. I learned a lot during the review process.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was just one sentence that was vague and contained inaccurate statements. For one, it said the identification of the estimated parameters was unclear without bothering to specify where exactly the identification problem is. Second, it made a false statement saying the two functions I am estimating "largely contain" the same variables, while in reality they are based on five variables only one of them being common.
Motivation:
The EA comment is valid, and high in quality
Motivation:
This journal is slow in terms of processing the manuscript and giving decisions.
Motivation:
So, if are thinking that providing a sound description of your experimental analysis (included hypotheses and description of empirical analysis) is what registered report mean at this journal, as in Nature journals, this is NOT THE case...this is just serve to "check the water"-. Save your money!
Motivation:
Quality reviews. After the 1st revision, the editor sent out for review again. Relatively quick with editorial decisions.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Precise and justified decisions, timely review, quality review reports, sensible comments from the reviewers, and logical acceptance of the revision.
The only limitation (but not linked to the review process) in my opinion is the strict word limit and the time to publication after being accepted (but they are in a process of improving the time to publication).
The only limitation (but not linked to the review process) in my opinion is the strict word limit and the time to publication after being accepted (but they are in a process of improving the time to publication).
Motivation:
After 10 months since the paper submits, two major revisions and two minor revisions, the paper was accepted. Editors are polite.
Motivation:
Journal editors were easy to contact and provided quick response. The revision rounds were fairly quick and of very good quality.
Motivation:
Handling was ok. Both reviews were short, one 331 words, the other just one sloppy sentence, even without caring for correct grammar. While the first addressed some minor and one major point and not conluding a decision, the second was an advice against publication but with a ridiculously superficial discussion.
The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.
The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.
Motivation:
The requested studies took a long time (particularly during the pandemic) and I felt that given all the extra work I wish that I had simply moved to another journal given the very strongly opinionated reviewer that made request but outside of a full animal study nothing would have been enough.
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers commented on the work in detail, and the editor's summary was also very helpful in improving the paper. However, one of the reviewers kept on insisting on adding very tangential papers in the related works section written by the same author. I believe this is not good practice among the reviewers of a journal widely recognized as the best in the field of computer networks.
Motivation:
as my manuscript was rejected but I have to say that the immediate action was so good and the chief editor of the journal sent me the reason for rejection very respectfully and logically which I didn't found in any other Journal before.