Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very satisfied with the overall process in Journal of Materials Chemistry A. The editor quickly handled our manuscript and the reviewers gave us insightful comments.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 304.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Four months after my submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Five months after submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Six months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that they were "fully aware of the delay in processing your manuscript". And that was the end of the e-mail. So no apologies, no 'real' update on number of reviewers, no estimated timeline, ...
Nine months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that 1 of the reviews was in, but that they were still waiting on a second review. They had send a reminder to the reviewer. They ended the e-mail with "it might still take a while before the final review comes in."
So, after nine months it could still 'take a while'. That is when I decided to withdraw my article. Huge waste of time.
Five months after submission, I send an email to get an update. No response.
Six months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that they were "fully aware of the delay in processing your manuscript". And that was the end of the e-mail. So no apologies, no 'real' update on number of reviewers, no estimated timeline, ...
Nine months after submission, I send an email to get an update. The response was that 1 of the reviews was in, but that they were still waiting on a second review. They had send a reminder to the reviewer. They ended the e-mail with "it might still take a while before the final review comes in."
So, after nine months it could still 'take a while'. That is when I decided to withdraw my article. Huge waste of time.
Motivation:
The journal did not give proper credit to an additional author working on the revision. It seems highly unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This has a negative impact on the journal reputation.
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
Motivation:
Unlike with some other publications, the editor actually gave useful & helpful input and made informed decisions particularly in first round of review. Unfortunate process glitch lead to entirely unnecessary third revision round and thus a few weeks delay, however (resubmit with zero changes). After two recent poor experiences, I was positively surprised by ACS copyediting.
Motivation:
The editors in Science Immunology are very absent. My manuscript was transferred to Science Immunology, but after two months, it stays in limbo without any action from the editor. The status has not changed a single time after the transfer, and the editor has not even had a quick glance at the manuscript. This really makes me upset. I have been sending emails to the editor after 7 weeks, but he never replied (meanwhile being fairly active on Twitter). It seems that many people (including my colleagues) have the same experience with Science Immunology. So one should be really patient and good-tempered if you decide to submit to this journal.
Motivation:
Very swift handling. Reviewers clearly knew topic area and offered insightful and brief comments.
Motivation:
Fast handling and online very quickly after manuscript accepted. A single reviewer, which was strange to me.
Motivation:
We had to wait quite long for the outcomes of the first review round, but after we received the editor's letter the whole process unfolded quite quickly. The reviews were useful and helped us to improve the text.
Motivation:
Excellent experience. Demanding but knowledgeable, reasonable, and prompt reviews that have improved the paper. The editor was quite prompt. The only issue is that the paper took too long to appear online after being accepted, but that's the issue of the publisher (Elsevier) rather than the journal team.
Motivation:
Desk rejected for "this work lacks sufficient novelty and broad interest for JACS".
Motivation:
General rejection letter
Motivation:
The journal does not have a fair peer-review process in my opinion. The reasons for rejection are not motivated.
Motivation:
The overall review process was very excellent. It took about four weeks to receive the first review comments. It took about three months from manuscript submission to acceptance. Based on my personal experience, I will recommend this journal to any researcher who wants a fair criticism of his or her manuscript. This is a very professional journal.
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast and smooth, even if not as fast the journal website advertises. The reports of the reviewers were quite useful.
Motivation:
- The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper.
- We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor
- We did communicate with the editor in chief in advance about the suitability of the topic, however still one reviewer comment about the scope of the manuscript
- I believe the review process is not very professional
-The article was rejected with not proper explanation
- We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor
- We did communicate with the editor in chief in advance about the suitability of the topic, however still one reviewer comment about the scope of the manuscript
- I believe the review process is not very professional
-The article was rejected with not proper explanation
Motivation:
This journal provides a clear review process that is constructive for the manuscript revision. The time for external review is swift. In addition, the reviewers' feedback was insightful so the revised manuscript improved its clarity immensely. I encourage colleagues in the healthcare arena to submit their work to this journal.
Motivation:
Rejecting a paper after a revision because the contribution to the filed is not sufficient is very disappointing. Why did you ask for a revision indeed?
Motivation:
Our paper was rejected, but the response was quite quick and we received useful comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Three reviewers indicating excitement about the results and some suggestions for improvement didn't cut it this time.
Motivation:
We waited for 3 months before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers (we had to provide an additional list of reviewers).
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
No information was provided during those 3 months. In a sense, we were lucky to have the manuscript sent to reviewers, but it could have also been a desk rejection after such a long time.
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Grateful for the clear and convincing report on the submitted manuscript. The report contains a short summary of the manuscript, points out some exposition problems, explains why the choice of the journal was not appropriate, contains suggestions on text improvement and journal choice. So trying this journal was useful for the author.
Motivation:
My paper was rejected based on a single review report. The reviewer devoted just a few lines to express his/her evaluation, pointing out some issues which could be easily tackled. I am very disappointed about the way in which the manuscript was handled by the associated editor. In the rejection letter he wrote, after more than 4 months from the initial submission, that the manuscript does not fit with the aims of the journal. Before to write this review, I wrote a complain letter to the editor, expressing all my disappointment in receiving just a single (superficial) report review limited to a few lines and in being informed afyer more than 4 months that my manuscript was not appropriate for the aims of the journal. Why didn't he informed me earlier with an immediate rejection? His answer was very generic and he did not reply properly, explianing his choices (e.g., "we receive many papers more competing than yours". Ok, no problems about this, but still, why didn't he reject immediately the manuscript?). I never will submit another manuscript to this journal, there are more professional outlets and it is not my intention to waste further time with unprofessional editors like that.