Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted as part of a special issue call. It went through 4 rounds of revisions, the last of them being a minor one. A new set of reviewers was assigned on each round, each one with different opinions about the manuscript and unaware of the previous changes. The manuscript was rejected after 20 months during the 4th (minor) review by decision of the editor, arguing a lack of adherence of the journal field.
Motivation:
The editor explained that there was not enough theoretical development.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out to two reviewers who recommended rejection. However, both did not seem to have put time in reading anything which they did not have clear from the beginning. The fact that we called yield in different predefined environmental categories different "traits" already seems to have caused some repulsion. Moreover, the second reviewer explicitly stated "I have only read the M&M section closely. [...] The trial design is not described at all, so there is no way of telling whether the fitted model matches the design used". I understand that this information should be added, however one could assume that someone presenting a standard phenotypic adjustment (this isn't rocket science) makes the adjustment according to the trial design. In my view, a reviewer should ask for this information in a revised version of the manuscript, but should not recommend a rejection. The quality of the reviews seemed very low.
Motivation:
Only 1 reviewer (out of 3) reccomended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript. The rejection letter came from an editorial assistant technician. Never heard from the Editor that handled the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editor said it was not suited for the journal. He encouraged me to submit to Scientific Reports, which is a medical journal, I found this illogical.
Motivation:
The editor Ms. Camodeca was very nice and provided very helpful comments and questions. Reviewers wrote in-depth review and suggested helpful and relevant literature that contributed to the final version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Editor Glenn Roisman wrote the nicest email and took time to explain in details why the manuscript does not fit emphasizing its strengths. They were more than polite and saved me a lot of time.
Motivation:
Extremely slow handling of the manuscript at every step of the process
Motivation:
The reviewers where very objective about what were the issues with my paper. The review process is also very fast compared to most other journals in this area. However, they will only accept a paper if there are enough experimental validation of a theory which is based on a solid mathematical framework. The presence of an experimental test-rig is a must. Besides, all the reviewers need to be on the same page for the manuscript to be considered for publication.
Motivation:
fast generic desk rejection
Motivation:
I submit this paper for a special issue. First, the abstract was accepted and we were invited to submit the whole paper. After 3 months received one single comment and the same in the second round of reviews. Finally, in the third round of review, the paper was rejected based on three short comments from one reviewer. The argument of the reviewer was that the case study was not theoretically motivated and the methodology was not novel. Both arguments could have been made one year before during the abstract review. In addition, the reviewer, I think, clearly did not understand the methodology. Editors may ensure that the reviewer will have the knowledge to assess the paper. I won't submit again to this journal, the entire process is unprofessional and with no respect for the time and effort invested.
Motivation:
The editors are really responsible and responsive, giving very insightful comments in a timely manner and helping us improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process was great. The reviewer reports were helpful and the revised manuscript was much improved through their feedback. The initial reviewer reports took some time to be received due to the original handling editor taking a leave (thus, needing a new handling editor), but the process was extremely quick following the assignment of a new editor. Overall, I am pleased with the process.
Motivation:
suggested transfer to Nature Communications
Motivation:
This decision was based upon suitability for publication in Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems and fit. However, they encouraged me to submit to the Journal of Transport Geography, which was not more suitable.
Motivation:
This time the reviews were very professional and helped to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
The journal is very reputed with 7.6 impact factor. If the topic of the journal aligns with your manuscript, they will take it very seriously. Reviewers were very good. They suggested some major changes and it definitely improved my paper a lot. One of the factors slowing down the process in my case was the editorial speed. The manuscript was 'with editor' for more than 2 months in the whole process. Other than this, it was pretty good experience. Would recommend the journal.
Motivation:
Very fast handling and review process. The review was not that tough. The manuscript remained roughly same after the revision.
Motivation:
The handling as well as the reviewer reports were quite ok. However, one has a little bit the impression that is very unlikely that a submission is rejected. This reduces the opinion on the quality of the overall review process.
Motivation:
The journal id very good. Awesome experience in submitting the work.
Motivation:
Fast generic desk-rejection for presubmission inquiry.