Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Submission is a pain, but then it acts as a filter against submissions that are not serious. The manuscript was handled in an efficient manner, but in the end the reviewers and editor suggested a field journal as the topic was not of sufficiently broad interest. Fair enough.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 82.1 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I submitted with other colleagues my manuscript on December 17th, 2020. Its status on ScholarOne remained "awaiting reviewer selection" all the time, meaning that reviewers have not been even selected. I wrote several times to the Editor asking for updates, without receiving any reply.
In the end, I wrote to the editorial office, who wrote to the editor. The editor replied, as an excuse, that it was difficult fo find reviewers cause of Covid-19, without mentioning why she did not reply to my several e-mails.
In the end, we retracted the article because we do not think it is a professional behavior in dealing with a manuscript's submission.
In the end, I wrote to the editorial office, who wrote to the editor. The editor replied, as an excuse, that it was difficult fo find reviewers cause of Covid-19, without mentioning why she did not reply to my several e-mails.
In the end, we retracted the article because we do not think it is a professional behavior in dealing with a manuscript's submission.
Motivation:
Detailed and highly demanding comments from reviewers.
Motivation:
The review comment was normal. The editorial department was kind and responded to my request immediately.
Motivation:
We were very disappointed in the review process of this journal. The quality of the review process and handling was poor and we are having difficulty understanding why there is such a long delay in obtaining feedback about our rebuttal to the review of our manuscript.
They rejected our first draft and then we added some details and we enhanced the manuscript by performing more in-depth analyses then we submitted our response to the reviewer and it has to wait 4 months before we hear back from them.
The response was even more shocking: ' For some reason, unknown to me, the letter informing you of the decision (reject without review) was not sent, despite being drafted'.
We would have appreciated knowing the plans and the expected timing.
They rejected our first draft and then we added some details and we enhanced the manuscript by performing more in-depth analyses then we submitted our response to the reviewer and it has to wait 4 months before we hear back from them.
The response was even more shocking: ' For some reason, unknown to me, the letter informing you of the decision (reject without review) was not sent, despite being drafted'.
We would have appreciated knowing the plans and the expected timing.
Motivation:
Very useful, detailed and clear review that has significantly influenced the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers are professional and strict. Their comments really help we improve our article. This journal is worth submitting high-quality, cutting-edge manusripts.
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed for 5 months, where they said that it was not very suitable for the Journal. We received one review that was general and did not serve the authors to improve the paper.
Motivation:
After one year and four months of our initial submission, at least we expected a little respect for what we've done. The paper was revised and resubmitted, and the editor simply rejected the paper based on arguments from previous revisions. We answered all questions raised by reviewers and aligned the paper accordingly to the suggestions formulated and approximately after seven months the editor made copied parts from the last revision and rejected the paper. You'll notice that the editor from IJTM is also an editor for several inderscience journals, but this is not an excuse to do not respect authors and their work. Don't waste your time with IJTM or with other inderscience journals edited by the same person.
Motivation:
8 months after submission, we received two reviews. One was positive, the other had criticisms that were subjective, minor, or readily addressed. The paper was rejected without the opportunity to revise or address the criticisms. We submitted it to another journal with a similar impact factor. It was reviewed there in 3 weeks. We revised to address minor suggestions from the reviewers. It was published 9 weeks after the initial submission to the second journal.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers comments included both major and minor points and addressing them helped make the manuscript better. The handling time of the paper overall was pretty quick so I am happy with that.
Motivation:
The duration, review comments and expectations were very realistic.
Motivation:
Reviewers reports were very constructive and highly supportive. It took us much effort to address all their (relevant) questions, and overall these novel results signifantly improved the manuscript. The review process was smooth (with regular updates from the editorial office) and constructive.
Motivation:
In fact, the reviewers´ comments could have been addressed in a reasonable manner and time frame, yet the paper was rejected. Hence, it was not clear to us why, if the revisions were reasonable, we were not given the opportunity to respond. However, communication with the Editorial team was fluent and overall good experience.
Motivation:
Submission was easy and standard. The waiting time was very long, almost 3 months. After more than two months I got an email apologizing for the delay and that they were waiting for the second review. That review never came and the editors instead of sending it to a new reviewer decided to better reject the manuscript. Terrible editorial job.
Motivation:
All in all it took more than a year from submission to publication. The manuscript went through 3 round of reviews, mostly due to one very antagonistic referee that simply should have not been allowed to judge our paper. The reviews became more and more aggressive, to the point that we were accused to doctoring the images (by selecting one very specific timestep in our simulation that would prove our point). Instead of controlling these exchanges, the editor blatantly sided with the referee, supporting the changes he was suggesting and never moderating the conversation (at least not that we could see).
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
Motivation:
Desk rejection.
Motivation:
Good timing, responsive editors and great reviewing process but the strict figure, table and word count limits can go in the way of accurate scientific reporting and readability.