Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After about 2 months evaluation, the manuscript was sent to 6 reviewers, 3 of them agreed that this work is of great importance and should be published with some revision. 1 of them required a major revision. 2 of them strongly disagree considering the novelty. After resubmitting the revision, the editor sent it to the 3 of them. And the reviewers agreed that the mentioned questions were all solved, but still strongly disagree considering the novelty. The two reviewers hold a strong prejudice on our work at the very beginning, which means no matter what we do is useless. I don't think that making the final decision only based on these 2 reviewers are reasonable. I just feel very disappointed.
Motivation:
One month after submission the journal status was still "Submitted to Journal", so I asked about the progress on the submission. After further two weeks I received the rejection.
Motivation:
The Editorial Advisory Board desk rejected the paper, informing us it was not suitable for publication in the journal because it did not present a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. The paper would not merit publication in a leading journal like Research Policy.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and the reviewers really contributed to the improvement of the paper. The only criticism I have is that in the second round of revisions, one reviewer criticized an addition that the other reviewer asked. So the editor could have intervened in this case to settle the situation before getting the reviews back to the authors. Other than that, I really appreciated the review process and the quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
Very fast!
Motivation:
The age of my population is too young to be adolescents
Motivation:
The reviewers raised minor issues that we addressed in the first round. The editor didn't give a clear accept/reject response even after we insisted. They said our article may be better for another JMIR journal without mentioning any specific concern why. The whole experience with JMIR was very unusual compared to other journals.
Motivation:
Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: the editors were not able to perceive the importance of the work
Motivation:
Fast and courteous response, somewhat constructive, a positive experience despite the desk rejection.
Motivation:
I find it unacceptable that an editor sits on a paper for 13.4 weeks before desk rejecting it. This is a waste of valuable time for hard working authors. I will probably no longer target Land Use Policy.
Motivation:
Only 2 reviewers gave comment and one of them with one scentence comment which is not enough.
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously faulty as they neglected the common knowledge in the field. The second review was just one sentence. This is but a joke.
Motivation:
A waste of time. The editorial team sent me back the article twice asking me to fix some time-consuming useless details and to provide a PRISMA document filled. I spent few days working on these tasks, and then the article got an immediate desk-rejection. Time wasted.
Motivation:
The journal maintained reasonable time for handling the paper. The reviews were professional and constructive. The editor suggested some corrections to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
We had four reviewers. All of them thought the article was interesting and methodologically good. Two reviewers did mild revisions, one was very thorough, and the last did not try understanding the manuscript. It was too molecular for the journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers were nice and knowledgble but a bit slow. 10 weeks for first round, 5 weeks for second.
Motivation:
The editor took 3-4 weeks of initial decision time before sending it to reviewers, which is a bit slow. While the Reviewers were fair, given this journal's high reputation I would have expected at least 3 reports to begin with, as well as a higher report quality than I've experienced elsewhere (which was not really the case).
Motivation:
They only sent out the manuscript to "one" reviewer. The reviewer misinterpreted major parts of our work. They made false assumptions on our problem formulation even when we had explicitly stated all the details both in text and in figures. The fact that they made the decision on just one review is extremely unprofessional.
Motivation:
Handling was prompt and reviewers were fair. The reviews were mostly positive, which the editor acknowledged, but after discussion among all Lancet editors they decided it did not fit within the scope of the journal because it was not yet immediately clinically applicable. This felt like a decision that could have been made before sending it out for review.
Immediately accepted after 21.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Took a bit of time for the reviewers' comments to arrive but I felt the editor handled our manuscript very professionally.
Motivation:
Rejection letter was courteous and the Editor showed knowledge of the article, but it was cryptic and not very helpful. Editorial system could have been more prompt at getting the paper to the Editor.