Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The rejection was reasoned and possibly saved us from a rejection at a later stage, but the time it took to get those reviews in is not OK.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 245.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 8 months without identifying reviewers for the paper I decided to withdraw it. Funny how it literally took them 5 minutes from the email I sent (asking to withdraw the paper) to them validating the withdrawal.
Such a loss of time but that's what you get from these mediocre journals. Resubmitted elsewhere.
Such a loss of time but that's what you get from these mediocre journals. Resubmitted elsewhere.
26.0 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We believe that our manuscript should have been given a chance to be revised and improved but it was not the case since the outcome was to reject.
Motivation:
There were 3 reviews that were extreme, 2 beside being impolite they were long and unstructured. 1 of them was very short and positive.
The editors did not point out which of the revisions were crucial for acceptance, as some of the reviewers comments were more "I would have done it differently" so we were not sure how much were we suppose to change.
The editors did not point out which of the revisions were crucial for acceptance, as some of the reviewers comments were more "I would have done it differently" so we were not sure how much were we suppose to change.
Motivation:
The editor politely rejected the manuscript, without sending to external peer reviewers. This is not unusual for high impact journals, however, the decision for editorial rejection took almost two months. This is a long delay which was likely avoidable and impacted negatively on the novelty of the results presented in the manuscript.
Editor's response:
"The unfortunate fact is that we receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space."
Editor's response:
"The unfortunate fact is that we receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space."
Motivation:
The Editor decided our manuscript was out of scope, although we provided many details how to valorize erucic acid, which is obtained only from industrial crops.
Motivation:
The review process at Life was relatively fast and smooth and the assigned editors were quick in their correspondence with us.
Motivation:
An editorial review should take less time. The work submitted is in the field of Materials Informatics, which is a very fast moving field. 18 days is too long for an editorial rejection.
Motivation:
It was a long process, but the editor and reviewers did a good and serious job. If you can wait, this is a good journal to submit your paper.
Motivation:
The reviewer looked not appropriate for reviewing the manuscript. The reviewers comment referred a lot to work with mice when the manuscript was exclusively work on humans. The difficulty in conducting the work in human samples, obtaining samples, and the advanced data analysis was not appreciated enough. The journal and reviewer did not find the manuscript mechanistic enough. False claims were made such as everything that we showed was previously knows which is not true for humans.
Motivation:
I fully respect the editor's decision to reject the paper, but even if it had been accepted, this is still my worst publishing experience ever because:
1. The reviewing process was outrageously long, and the editor was generally irresponsive to inquiries.
2. One reviewer suggested adding some marginally relevant references, which felt fishy to me.
1. The reviewing process was outrageously long, and the editor was generally irresponsive to inquiries.
2. One reviewer suggested adding some marginally relevant references, which felt fishy to me.
Motivation:
Quick and professional handling by editors. Constructive reviews, improved the manuscript. Editor apparently chose the reviewers we suggested upon submission.
Motivation:
The comments by the editor were condescending and unprofessional. It seems the editor sees himself as a gatekeeper and prefers to not let any work that doesn't agree with his own narrow ideas.
Motivation:
Went relatively fast.
Good comments from reviewers and field editor.
Number of reviewer good with 3
Good comments from reviewers and field editor.
Number of reviewer good with 3
Motivation:
The overall process was very fast and I had a good experience with this journal.
Motivation:
My experience was similar to the other negative reviews. Feedback from this journal is typically contradictory. Specifically, they claim that certain conventions are grounds for rejection, when the general contains several studies using the same approach. Additionally, I think that the reviewers used are often lacking in experience and produce nonsensical brief comments. In my opinion this is one of the worse jourmals I have ever had the misfortune to interact with.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments' were short but constructive. The handling editor processed my manuscript in a timely manner. However, it took a while to clear technical review processed done by the journal office (~ 1wk / round).
Motivation:
it was okay, the editorial board was easy to contact.
Motivation:
Quick and professional handling by editors. Constructive reviews.
Motivation:
As a multi-disciplinary business journal, they offer different sections and authors have to choose one. The EIC passed the manuscript to another section despite our existing choice, which was against our wills, but we respected their decisions given our manuscripts was, to some extent, at the boundary of sections.
I received two reviewers reports. Both reports suffered factual mistakes, which made me have no confidence in further submission to JBR. For example,
1. Reviewer 1 said "There is also no literature review section". However, we clearly had one, with an identical title "Literature Review".
2. Reviewer 2 said that we did not define the targeted phenomenon, suggesting that as a major flaw. While we did not use terms like "may be defined as" or "refers to", it does not mean we have not defined. Indeed, we prepared a fairly detailed description of the phenomenon.
3. Reviewer 2 opposed our argument, which highlighted relatively limited literature on the targeted phenomenon. He said that "is not as limited as the author suggest, quite the opposite". He had further offered a list of journal articles. But among the list, many of the articles are indeed irrelevant to the phenomenon that we explored. Even if we could have done a better job offering definition, we absolutely do not believe we made so unclear to the extent that he would offer an irrelevant journal list. Even if the list contained many articles from highly regarded journals, I feel the reviewer was only doing a random search based on the terms that we used and put into the list.
4. Reviewer 2 said "the article fails to offer any meaningful contribution". However, we have widely cited different journal articles that review. Based on our findings, we compared and contrasted the boundary conditions of previous theoretical arguments.
5. I am also disappointed that Reviewer 2 accused our tables in the literature review "look more like a student dissertation and lack meaningful, critical analysis on relevant studies". It is hugely shocking for us to read this. First, the adoption of tables is recommended by some top-tier UTD24 journals. Alternative preferences are acceptable, but using tables in literature reviews alone is absolutely not a habit as Reviewer 2 described. Second, we had synthesised on the previous literature after the table, or the table itself is already an outcome of the needed synthesis.
I received two reviewers reports. Both reports suffered factual mistakes, which made me have no confidence in further submission to JBR. For example,
1. Reviewer 1 said "There is also no literature review section". However, we clearly had one, with an identical title "Literature Review".
2. Reviewer 2 said that we did not define the targeted phenomenon, suggesting that as a major flaw. While we did not use terms like "may be defined as" or "refers to", it does not mean we have not defined. Indeed, we prepared a fairly detailed description of the phenomenon.
3. Reviewer 2 opposed our argument, which highlighted relatively limited literature on the targeted phenomenon. He said that "is not as limited as the author suggest, quite the opposite". He had further offered a list of journal articles. But among the list, many of the articles are indeed irrelevant to the phenomenon that we explored. Even if we could have done a better job offering definition, we absolutely do not believe we made so unclear to the extent that he would offer an irrelevant journal list. Even if the list contained many articles from highly regarded journals, I feel the reviewer was only doing a random search based on the terms that we used and put into the list.
4. Reviewer 2 said "the article fails to offer any meaningful contribution". However, we have widely cited different journal articles that review. Based on our findings, we compared and contrasted the boundary conditions of previous theoretical arguments.
5. I am also disappointed that Reviewer 2 accused our tables in the literature review "look more like a student dissertation and lack meaningful, critical analysis on relevant studies". It is hugely shocking for us to read this. First, the adoption of tables is recommended by some top-tier UTD24 journals. Alternative preferences are acceptable, but using tables in literature reviews alone is absolutely not a habit as Reviewer 2 described. Second, we had synthesised on the previous literature after the table, or the table itself is already an outcome of the needed synthesis.
Motivation:
Clear communication from the editorial office and the editor and reviewers provided very helpful suggestions on how to improve the paper.
Motivation:
This was a standard desk rejection. We received the editor of our choice,.
Motivation:
After 9 months in the submission portal the journal was unable to find suitable reviewers for our paper despite us providing an extensive list of names and prompting them to follow up on multiple occasions.
Motivation:
Very good editorial process
Motivation:
Fast handling and review process.
Motivation:
The handling process was perfect. The editor was responsive and efficient. The reviewers were professional.
Motivation:
I wouldn't say that every aspect of the review process was perfect, but GRL maintained its usual efficiency despite the pandemic and people's summer vacation. Therefore, I think it deserves a 5.
Motivation:
The time elapsed is unreasonable even considering the special situation of 2020. It wasn't clear which step could have caused the delay, but from the content of the 1st round reports it was evident that at least one of the two reviewers finished their report 3+ months before it was sent to us by the editor and the other reviewer was very positive with only a few minor comments. Though the paper was accepted, it had lost its timeliness, and the manuscript was barely changed since its initial submission.
Motivation:
The speed is normal. But it is necessary to push the editor in every step. A day after the push-email, the comments came back. Reviewers are professional. After the revision according to the comments from the reviewers, we regretted to summit to Nat Com. It seems worthy to fit Nature Cell Biology or Molecular Cell.