Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One reviewer chastises us for not citing just under 40(!) additional publications. We barely made the word limit without citing them. We are glad to have the cites but its not realistic to add that many in this paper.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
Motivation:
No reason given for a desk rejection. Not too happy about such an outcome.
Motivation:
3 reviews received - 2 were ok/positive (i.e. had critical feedback but gave a green light), 1 was fairly negative but did not recommend rejection. All the critiques could have been addressed within 1-2 weeks of editing and revisions. Strongly disagree with the editor's decision, seemed sloppy and poorly justified.
Motivation:
The only reason I take out one point, is the initial waiting time for the first decision. I can understand the bulk of papers arriving at each journal's editorial office every day, but waiting for more than two months is a bit frustrating. But the whole process was very smooth and everything went fine.
Motivation:
Fast review. Make sure your files are small enough for the initial submission, total compiled PDF that you submit must be 20 MB, this includes all files including any associated manuscripts you are submitting for the editor's information. We had a delay of a few days as we didn't understand how many of the different files we needed to resize and the information was not made clear during the submission process.
Motivation:
Before submitting our manuscript to JRS, we checked SciRev. When reading the abundance of reviews evidencing the editorial slowness, we were reluctant to send our manuscript to JRS. However, since I had a previous—similarly slow but eventually successful—experience with JRS, we decided to give it a try. After all, we thought that our manuscript provided a very novel and fresh view (don't we all?).
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
Motivation:
It took just over four months for the authors to receive the reviewer comments (first round). This may have been due to the number of reviewers (4). Although, the comments received were more than appropriate and helped to improve the manuscript. I would recommend submitting relevant articles to JSOM.
Motivation:
In addition to the lengthy review process, the post-production time was extremely long. The paper was accepted July 2020, we have been told not to expect proofs of the manuscript until March 2021 at the earliest. After three rounds of external review, there was also another unexpected round of scientific review with the editor.
Motivation:
The desk reject came with a very thoughtful and articulate compliment which indicated that the editor really did read the paper.
Motivation:
Article rejected, but based on three review reports that were received very rapidly. Not the outcome desired, but happy to receive it rapidly. The reviewers seemed rather knowledgeable on the topic, although one reviewer recommended rejection based on an aspect of the article that they admitted was not their expertise. That was disappointing, but the overall decision was based on comments of all three reviewers.
Motivation:
Handled in a professional and quick manner. The reviewers' comment were fair, balanced and useful.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Quick. Very keen on formalities (APA-Style). It seemed to me that both reviewers were not theory- and research-oriented, but rather practitioners who did not value the theoretical focus of the submitted paper.
Motivation:
The response and the attitude of the reviewers' and the editor were positive and constructive. The quality of the manuscript was really enhanced after the revisions.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments and the editorial approach were positive. Constructive comments and suggestions really augmented the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took the journal 4 months to find a handling editor, and then it took another 2 months to find reviewers. The reviews I got back consisted of Reviewer 1 contributing primarily a copy edit job of grammatical and sentence restructuring instead of actual feedback on the content in the MS and Reviewer 2 asking for the inclusion of four references, three of which were from the same working group along with one other request for revision of the title and abstract.
Motivation:
Although the topic was interesting as suggested by the AE, the reviewers were not quite satisfied with the comparisons and the experimental results. Most importantly, I failed to cite any work from IEEE TIE which was emphatically pointed out by the reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewers were very objective in their reviews (major revision) and highlighted the critical issues with the paper. After resubmission, the paper was accepted without any further hurdle. The reviewers were less critical as I had uploaded videos of experimental results.
6.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My initial submission was rejected with option to resubmit, which was always my intention. To me, this seemed a slightly harsh decision as the reviewers were both positive on the concepts and study, but requested major changes (which I was able to implement in good time - 6 weeks, which was less than the review time). Irrespective, the reviewer comments certainly contributed to the betterment of the article, which I thank them for. Following my resubmission of the article, the review process was very smooth, with the only exception of some terminology misunderstandings by one reviewer leading to the same comment appearing in the reviews of the manuscript.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
Motivation:
Overall we had a good experience with Conservation Science and Practice. The first set of comments were much more substantial than we expected for a paper which had already been through quite a lot of informal peer review and revision. There were some excellent comments to improve its structure, but also some comments that we disagreed strongly with (some arguing it was not novel, and others arguing we should use different language which was less clear to us). We responded to all comments, accepting what we agreed with (or were at least OK with), and explaining why we rejected the others and what we think the reviews had missed or misunderstood about our paper. One benefit of this was better explaining what our paper's niche and novel contribution was, although the work it required was disproportionate to the benefit. However, we very much appreciated the fast replies from the staff, and that they were willing to assign a new editor to the major revision we submitted. The new editor also had a great balance of pushing us on some issues, but allowing us to push back as well. For example, s/he wanted us to use more technical and complex language and syntax, when our choice of language was deliberate and reflected a lot of thought and work to make the paper accessible. Overall I would definitely recommend the journal.
14.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal may not be highly regarded in accordance with different journal ranking. And yet, the editorial team had really done a good job giving advice on how the paper should be improved, especially by consolidating the comments from different reviewers. They would highlight the more important and essential comments, so that authors do not have to entertain unreasonable comments.
What they have done is a role model for all other journals editors.
What they have done is a role model for all other journals editors.
Motivation:
I believe that the reviewers’ suggestions were very helpful in improving
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
Motivation:
Editor offered some helpful suggestions but overall felt that the article was more appropriate for a field-specific journal.