Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My manuscript received an editorial rejection at Nature Medicine for reason X, but I was told that it was still interesting enough to be sent to Nature Communications. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms.
Motivation:
The review process takes three months, though they claim 'We are committed to providing an efficient service for both authors and reader'. During the three months, review information is hardly updated. Finally, we received two reviews. One review is severely biased, and the other is also not helpful, which makes the review process a complete waste of time.
Please do not contact the editors because they do not reply.
'I sincerely apologize for the delay in sending you a decision; we encountered some difficulties in securing a third reviewer with appropriate expertise. Though we would have preferred to consider advice from a third reviewer, we have decided to go ahead with a decision to prevent further delays. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.'
Please do not contact the editors because they do not reply.
'I sincerely apologize for the delay in sending you a decision; we encountered some difficulties in securing a third reviewer with appropriate expertise. Though we would have preferred to consider advice from a third reviewer, we have decided to go ahead with a decision to prevent further delays. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.'
Motivation:
the whole process was smooth, timely, and professional. the journal chose fair reviewers with subject matter expertise.
Motivation:
The waiting time for a response from a potential referee was too long. In the end, another referee was contacted.
Motivation:
The reviewers found that my paper was not novel.
Motivation:
Data were too old; but with a changing media landscape I guess this is not entirely unreasonable.
Motivation:
We received a rejection after the peer review. The process was quick and fast (<1 month). The review reports were detailed and I do appreciate the comments from the reviewer.
Motivation:
The editorial and peer-review process was quite long, and the status on the manuscript central was not updated to show the actual status of our paper at the different stages. This meant we spent a lot of time trying to get answers from the editor(s) about the paper, as we had not heard from them in months at one point.
Motivation:
(appropriately) transferred to a sister journal
Motivation:
I submitted my paper and waited more than 20 weeks (Average is 9 weeks). They said that they received the review from a reviewer, and need to wait two more. They sent to others reviewers again. There is no thing happen.
Motivation:
Dr. Cassidento, the editor-in-chief of AAG, is very responsive and professional. Prof. Ling Bian rejected the manuscript as being out of their scope. AAG is very good.
Motivation:
Fairly quick initial screening.
Motivation:
The review of the revised manuscript was very long because one of the reviewers in the first round "disappeared." The editor had to find another peer which proved to be very problematic during the COVID period. Despite all these problems, the editor was very helpful and answered the questions quickly.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing and review time. Poor submission experience with AJOG.
Motivation:
The review process was quite rapid, however one of the referees was not really competent.
Motivation:
Slower than anticipated for review process. Reviews very brief.
Motivation:
The editor gave me valuable feedback and comments for the first half of the MS. She encouraged me to re-send it again if I wished to make substantial improvements: In several places more information was needed. And the results did not reflect what would be reported in the analytical approach chosen.
46.1 weeks
46.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
This Journal has worst review system. The handling time is too long. The reviewers and editors are not helpful at all.
Motivation:
The whole review process was professional. The comments of the referees are helpful.
Motivation:
as always, rejected without review.
Motivation:
Our experience with the journal was quite positive. Everyone from the editorial office to the reviewers was quite good. We could not submit the manuscript on time during the first round of revision, and editors were quite ok in providing us additional time as the article required significant revisions.
Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
As the status of my manuscript has remained unchanged, I asked 62 days after submission if there has been any further progress on my submission. I just received a standard answer that my manuscript is currently undergoing editorial assessment. Finally, I got a desk rejection after 122 days. I am frustrated of waiting, since I am currently completing a PhD, I am depended on a quick review.