Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Quick and efficient review process, with clear reasons for the rejection.
Motivation:
Finalizing a decision based on the comments of a single reviewer based on a few benchmark results with regard to its all round performance following days of testing and validation and the inability and untimely action of the associate editor raises many questions. The reviewers are absolutely useless with their generalized comments (Most comments are very vague with the comment that a very huge gap exists between the results and conclusion for a manuscript of about 90 pages with 50K words) and expecting the duck to lay golden eggs without feeding it properly.
Motivation:
I did not hear anything from Scientific Reports after 4 months since the initial submission. Upon contacting the journal, I found that they still had not assigned even an editor to handle the manuscript - and according to them, all of their senior editors were busy at the moment.
Since I am not working on any exotic field, lack of professionalism is the only plausible reason for not finding an editor to handle the peer-review process.
Therefore, after 4 lost months my colleagues and I opted to withdraw our manuscript - evidently, we will never submit anything to Scientific Reports or review for this journal again.
Since I am not working on any exotic field, lack of professionalism is the only plausible reason for not finding an editor to handle the peer-review process.
Therefore, after 4 lost months my colleagues and I opted to withdraw our manuscript - evidently, we will never submit anything to Scientific Reports or review for this journal again.
Motivation:
We received timely and quality comments to our review manuscript. Everything was handled during an average timeframe (about 1 month from submission to decision each time). Reviewers were fair with their comments, and the resulting manuscript benefitted from the suggestions.
Motivation:
Although the submitted paper was rejected by jacs, the following revision based on the reviewers' comments significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Motivation:
Our Paper was a complete study on a widely used drug. Previously, another paper had been published in STM which we disproved through thorough experiments and mathematical modeling. The handling editor is probably the same. They rejected the paper without any given reason/peer review as they don't want to accept that they published a scientifically incorrect paper in the recent past. This journal runs its own propaganda.
Motivation:
The reviewers were expert in the field. The journal office was helpful and responsive.
Motivation:
Merely "interesting" and not "ground-breaking" apparently.
Motivation:
I published with this journal multiple times in the past year and they are great in handling everything. Their review process takes less than a month and they are very lenient with editing your article even the night before it goes online. For my recent publication, we had to change the acknowledgement and we realized this one week after we submitted the 2nd version of proof and everything was set for publication. Luckily, before the paper goes online, we were able to resolve the issue.
Motivation:
The answer on the revised manuscript was really to long and we had to write to editor and journal (editor was not answering) several times until we just received an automatic e-mail to say that the article was accepted.
Motivation:
The editorial process was very fast. The editors provided a one-page, general but to-the-point and constructive assessment.
Motivation:
The review process was a typical review process. It did not take too much time, the reviews were thorough and linked to the topic (mostly). In summary a quite fast and uncomplicated review process.
Motivation:
Disappointingly unprofessional, slow process. It has been 11 months since we submitted our manuscript and 6 months since we submitted a revised version based on two reviews, one positive and one requesting numerous changes to formatting and organization. Our numerous email inquiries and inquiries through online forms have not received a response.
Motivation:
This journal practices "internal assessment by editors." Standard form letter stating, "After careful evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not find your work suitable for publication in ChemComm as it does not have sufficient urgency and impact to appeal to our wide readership." To make it look more personal and at an attempt to make it appear that there was an evaluation, a sentence was added about the precursors in the chemistry. It is conceivable that only the abstract was read, and that too by a non-expert in the field. Broad/wide interest is a generic expression used "broadly and widely" that literally has no meaning, because nothing is going to interest a "vast number" of readers of any journal. Dissatisfied with this review process, and generally with the practice of desk rejections, often by those with unknown independent experience and/or expertise. Have petitioned for a reconsideration. Let us see...
Motivation:
This was a completely unacceptable and unprofessional treatment that my work received from eLife. My study was on the topic of COVID epidemiology, a subject that is changing at tremendous speed. Thus, delays of weeks that usually do not move the needle for other areas, were crucial for my work.
It took eLife 35 days to come to an editorial decision. Some problem had them contacting me on day 16, telling me that there had been delays. They apologized and told me a decision would be made shortly. Then, I would wait in vain, contact them asking for updates, and then be offered apologies, and told "editors are doing their utmost to expedite the process". This pattern repeated again and again during 3 weeks, and misguided me into keeping my work into this time wasting process, rather than taking it to another journal where I would have been given a first decision much earlier.
This was tremendously disrespectful of the huge amount of work and resources that I poured into this work (and I am an ECR from a developing country, without time and resources to spare). I firmly believe that the impact of my work has been considerably damaged by the ridiculously long time it spent under editorial consideration at eLife. And the information I received was consistently misguiding, with several weeks passing between eLife telling me "a decision is coming in a few days", and the decision eventually coming.
Hugely disappointed
It took eLife 35 days to come to an editorial decision. Some problem had them contacting me on day 16, telling me that there had been delays. They apologized and told me a decision would be made shortly. Then, I would wait in vain, contact them asking for updates, and then be offered apologies, and told "editors are doing their utmost to expedite the process". This pattern repeated again and again during 3 weeks, and misguided me into keeping my work into this time wasting process, rather than taking it to another journal where I would have been given a first decision much earlier.
This was tremendously disrespectful of the huge amount of work and resources that I poured into this work (and I am an ECR from a developing country, without time and resources to spare). I firmly believe that the impact of my work has been considerably damaged by the ridiculously long time it spent under editorial consideration at eLife. And the information I received was consistently misguiding, with several weeks passing between eLife telling me "a decision is coming in a few days", and the decision eventually coming.
Hugely disappointed