Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
It took the editor a long time to find two reviewers. However, the reviewers did carefully review the manuscript and give critical yet helpful comments, so it is not a complete waste of time.
Motivation:
The two reviewers were professional and the editor seemed to have read the reviewer's comments carefully. The handling was extremely efficient despite the holiday season.
Motivation:
7 months for an outright rejection based on one reviewer's opinion.
The editor is accessible and answers to a status update requests.
The editor is accessible and answers to a status update requests.
Motivation:
Very fast response by the editor
Motivation:
The process was time-consuming, taking 14 months from initial submission to publication. One reviewer suggested including an extensive area of literature that was not covered in the initial submission. This took 6 months amidst other responsibilities, and I wanted to do a thorough job of covering making these changes to facilitate acceptance. This reviewer was happy with these changes, but the second reviewer was unavailable and the paper went to a third reviewer who had other (but less extensive) suggested changes. While the end product is much better than the initial submission, there is a diminishing-returns relationship between time spent on a paper and its quality. Some journals seem happy with publishing papers that are 90% perfect, while Crop and Pasture Science and the reviewers it chooses seem to require 99% perfection. This is great for their readers, but their high bar may mean that some good results don't get published.
Motivation:
The duration of the review process for this journal was satisfactory and the staff made it a point to update all authors at the soonest possible time. The peer review inputs were generally favorable and agreeable; however, one of the reviewers may have likely attempted to "citation hack" which we respectfully declined.
Motivation:
The second review round was due to the editor's own comments (the editor had already asked for changes during the first review round, which we addressed in full) despite both external reviewers suggesting only minor changes during the first round (which we addressed in full).
Motivation:
The reviewers' reports content were good and useful, but the overall process took a very long time. We even had an additional round of reviews because the submission system did not send our "response to reviewers" document to the reviewers.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted but the experience was not great. The paper went through 3 rounds of revision in total. After the first round of revision, two out of three reviewers reccomended acceptance, whereas a single unsympathethic reviewer was still not satisfied about the extend of the revision (which is fair enough of course). In such situations one would normally expect editor to either go with the majority and accept the paper, or enlist an additional reviewer, but in any case give the authors the opportunity to further amend the paper. Instead they rejected it stating we didn't adddress this reviewer's comments (which wasn't true but no specific comments on this were provided, even after inquiry) but, at the same time, invited us to address them and resubmit it as a new paper. The only sensible explanation I could think of is they bring down submission-to-publication times (which of course will be nominally shorter if one considers every revision round as a new paper) by doing that. So that was pretty awkward, but we eventually did what they asked and resubmit as a new paper to avoid having to start from scratch with a different journal. The "new" paper was eventually accepted after one more round of revisions.
The really annoying part of the whole process was that all communication went through an obviously clueless editorial assistant who seemed only focused on getting us to resubmit as fast as possible, rather than allowing us proper time to address the reviewer's comments. All resubmission deadlines they gave were extremely short (1 or 2 weeks), which was not consistent with the amount of revision requested by the reviewers. We generally respected the deadlines, but nonetheless they kept spamming us every 2-3 days, also during weekends, asking about the status of our paper (all authors mind you, not just the corresponding one) and reminding us to resubmit the paper as fast as possible.
All in all a bad experience, I won't submit there again.
The really annoying part of the whole process was that all communication went through an obviously clueless editorial assistant who seemed only focused on getting us to resubmit as fast as possible, rather than allowing us proper time to address the reviewer's comments. All resubmission deadlines they gave were extremely short (1 or 2 weeks), which was not consistent with the amount of revision requested by the reviewers. We generally respected the deadlines, but nonetheless they kept spamming us every 2-3 days, also during weekends, asking about the status of our paper (all authors mind you, not just the corresponding one) and reminding us to resubmit the paper as fast as possible.
All in all a bad experience, I won't submit there again.
Motivation:
One of the fastest journal in its field. There was one reviewer who addressed the missing points of the paper very clearly and asked me to improve the quality by further discussion. Once I followed the recommendations and resubmitted the paper, it was accepted in a very short time.
Motivation:
Very good review system and very interesting reports from the reviewers. The editor also made some requests with which we did not agree; we explained our reasons and he was okay with them. A good experience.
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Critique of our manuscript was thorough, and helped in improving it for submission to other journals.
Motivation:
The journal kept me up to date with the review process; the feedback was extensive and helpful. I found the journal to be supportive and helpful throughout the process.
Motivation:
Super long reviewing process
Motivation:
One reviewer was adamant that the ideas presented were of 'no physiological relevance' and yet did not give concrete suggestions on how to improve the manuscript due to what we believe is an internal bias. This is the rudest and most condescending review I have ever received, and it was clear, to me, that the reviewer did not understand the premise of the experiment, nor read the manuscript in its entirety.
Motivation:
Fast & fair review. It took longer than expected to resubmit revisions due to Covid-19 lockdowns. I highly recommend submitting to this journal. Even proofs were processed unexpectedly fast.