Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The journal took an extremely long time (almost two months) to reject the manuscript without sending it to review. One month after submission, I inquired about the delay and I was told that the paper had been "accidentally held in an initial staff check", but was now with the editors. Three weeks after that, I had still not received a response, and I inquired again. I was told by an editorial assistant that the editor was not responding to her emails, and that she would try again. I received the decision exactly the day after that, in a completely generic email with no feedback (or apologies) whatsoever. Desk rejections are OK, but it is only fair to expect that they sould be quick. Taking two months for this is shockingly disrespectful to authors' work.
Motivation:
My experience with this Journal was horrible. It took them almost 2 months to find an editor to handle my paper and 2 more months to invited reviewers that did not accept to review the paper. I would strongly suggest not submit to this Journal if you value your time and research.
Motivation:
This article received a revise and resubmit the first time around. While we did not necessarily agree with all the comments, we extensively rewrote the article, added new variables, and re-ran the analysis, and gave a detailed account of all of this. This was several weeks work. We then resubmitted the article. Instead of sending it back to the original referees, we instead received a new bunch of referee reports from different reviewers, which did not always agree with the previous reviewers, and we were again given the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We are not clear that there is an end to this process. Presumably we could spend another couple of/few weeks revising this article, only to have the process repeated. This is a mid-range journal and is simply not worth the effort to do this. We have already expended 6 months on this. So we will send it to another journal.
Motivation:
I had some concerns about reviewer 2 and the editor helped me and answered my questions very fast.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Postharvest Biology and Technology.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
I regret to inform you that while one reviewer was supportive of this study, the other two reviewers (experts in the field) recommended against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
Motivation:
Desk-rejection after 18 days is disheartening, to say the least.
Motivation:
Most of the review reports were of high quality and supportive. They have helped to improve the paper. However, the first round took long (more than 5 months), but that's not necessarily the fault of the editor or the journal. The communication with the editor was perfect.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
A short turn-around time
Motivation:
Reviews from APL tend to be not very detailed, as I've gone through and had papers accepted with them in the past. I'm always happy with their relatively quick turnaround times. However, this time we had an unreasonable request from a reviewer, who requested additional experiments (make new samples and build a new set-up for different kinds of measurements), additional simulations, additional calculations, and completely new figures to recapture all the new info. I believe this is asking too much for APL. This request would be sufficient for a completely separate and higher impact paper. We decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew our submission and decided to go elsewhere.
Motivation:
Rejected after 20 days because not interesting enough for the audience of the journal, according to the editor.
Motivation:
detailed explanation why the manuscript was not a fit for the journal
Motivation:
After 6 weeks I received the email, that the editor is assigned and 10 minutes later I received the email with the generic desk reject text (“not novel enough”). So, the editor read/screened the entire documents, incl. cover letter etc. and wrote the email in less than 10 minutes? I do not think so.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
Motivation:
We had an excellent experience. The review reports were very detailed and professional. It took some effort to address them, but they have enhanced the quality of the paper. Overall, the entire process was quick and pleasant. The associate editor was very responsive about a query we had.
Motivation:
The journal should update the Aims and Scope on the web pages - they say that the journal provides a venue for papers on pathogenesis (among others)... and then they immediately reject papers on pathogenesis, as they "do not strongly inform on disease emergence and spread". Quite confusing.
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and responsive.
Motivation:
After all a very good process. Editor was very cooperative and the overall quality as well as the tone of the reviews was good and respectful.
Motivation:
Was rejected by editor because the work did not "represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications". However, the editor recommended we transfer to Nature Communications Medicine, which we did.
Motivation:
Fast and fair review process. Would submit here again.