Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very fast.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
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.