Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Immediately accepted after 21.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Took a bit of time for the reviewers' comments to arrive but I felt the editor handled our manuscript very professionally.
Motivation:
Rejection letter was courteous and the Editor showed knowledge of the article, but it was cryptic and not very helpful. Editorial system could have been more prompt at getting the paper to the Editor.
Motivation:
Very professional, very fast turnaround time. I was very impressed.
Motivation:
This was the worst submission I have ever had. This is unbearable for a PhD student to waste 22 month for such an irregular journal. ِDuring this time, the editor was saying that he needs 1 additional review to make the decision.
Motivation:
Editor judged that the reviewers "overall enthusiasm was not sufficient to allow further consideration"
Motivation:
They're said:
The associate editor handling the review suggests submitting it to a more specialized journal. This suggestion has been echoed by the fact that there are very few recent Neurocomputing papers in the references.
They expect my paper had references to their journal. I think this expectation is not rational nor moral.
The associate editor handling the review suggests submitting it to a more specialized journal. This suggestion has been echoed by the fact that there are very few recent Neurocomputing papers in the references.
They expect my paper had references to their journal. I think this expectation is not rational nor moral.
Motivation:
it was reviewed by an AE, but was rejected
Motivation:
quick desk rejection
Motivation:
Clear evidence of an editorial review, lack of space as the main reason, plus a sentence of feedback (which is more than what we get from most desk rejections)
Motivation:
Surprisingly extensive feedback on the reason for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
suggested a different journal
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and gave us a fair chance to answer all of the critiques. She seemed very committed to helping us improve the quality of our manuscript. The handling process was rather quick. A couple of times the submission system rejected our files due to technical checks that felt arbitrary and were not explained well by the error notification, but otherwise all was good journal-wise.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
Motivation:
One referee report was extremely short, and the overall process took relatively long.
2.0 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
The immediate decision was fast without wasting time.
Motivation:
Excellent comments on the manuscript have been given by the associated editor.
Motivation:
Firstly, very long review time that is inconsistent with the advertised first decisitime. Secondly, from the two reviews one was accept after revisions while praising the work. The second review was reject by a reviewer unfamiliar with the analytical method who only argued that he doesnsee audience interest! The editor with no third review or any explanation rejected too. Overall such a waste of time. It used to be a great journal a few years ago. By the way manuscript accepted in a higher if journal later. Save your 2 month time and send to another journal
Motivation:
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. In such a case the case for the reject should be a bit more detailed than a standard desk rejection
Motivation:
Just a quick add-on comment:
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.
I was very busy with other matters during the submission process of this paper, which elongated the review process. Although the editor and the journal staff were helpful, patient and undestanding along the way, If I could've focused on the revisions better, and submitted them faster, the process could've been even faster.
Motivation:
The editor offered us a direct transfer to a sister journal.