Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor raised an interesting point regarding comparison with at least one other existing method. The comparison would be interesting. It would have been nice had the method(s) been listed. The editor admitted that the proposed method was interesting.
Motivation:
i submitted the article, it was stuck on "with editor" status for 120 days. I sent emails nobody answered. Only after i sent emails to the IT of npj, they answer and told that they found revierersand the review will start. Didn't believed them, and Withrow my article.
Motivation:
Reviewer #1 provided balanced, professional, and genuinely constructive feedback. Reviewer #2 raised some potentially legitimate methodological concerns; however, these were severely undermined by an unnecessarily hostile, dismissive, and at times impolite tone that falls below the standards expected of academic peer review. Rather than offering constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript, the reviewer repeatedly impugns the authors’ competence, honesty, and reliability—e.g., asserting that the authors’ “carelessness … ends up calling into question a lot of other aspects of the paper,” that the reader is left wondering “if they’re this careless here, are they just as careless even in the data,” and even stating “I’m not honestly sure that they did” the transcription/glossing correctly. The reviewer also used accusatory rhetorical questions and sarcastic framing (“Well, was it sold in an auction or towed?”; “Well, is it proximal or distal?”; “Is it a different dialect after all? Or what is going on?”), and escalated from critique to disparagement (“the lack of attention to detail makes the authors appear unreliable,” “I’m not even sure if they analyzed the demonstratives correctly either,” “I have to really question this”). This approach is inappropriate and unprofessional, and it risks biasing editorial decisions by shifting the focus from correctable issues in the manuscript to blanket judgments about the authors’ reliability and good faith.
Motivation:
I think manuscripts was well fit to scope and audience. the answer i got, felt like the manuscript wasn't really read.
Motivation:
Despite the rejection, the process was fast (submitted on a Friday evening and received the decision by Monday evening). We were also advised to transfer the manuscript to NAR Cancer, with the transfer link remaining valid for three weeks.
Motivation:
The Editor's first discussion was a very swift decision, as per the open data.
Motivation:
The reviewer feedback was unprofessionally worded and editor should have done due diligence of reading both reports before rejecting. At least the process was quick.
Motivation:
Desk rejection took almost 4 weeks with a reason that at least gave the impression that the manuscript was thoroughly read by the editor/s.
Motivation:
The editorial desk rejection took 1 month with no proper feedback or reason for rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers generated their comments using AI. The editor showed a poor attitude and rejected my manuscript after I revised it in response to three reviewers.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 119.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript was assigned to an editor within two days of submission but remained under editorial review for nearly four months without a decision. Despite two follow-up emails, the only response received was that the manuscript was in the editor’s queue. After sending a final email requesting a decision by the end of the month, no reply was received, and the submission was later marked as “Withdrawn.” This duration is considerably longer than the journal’s stated median time to first decision of 42 days.
Motivation:
I understand that peer review can be slow, and that editors handle many submissions, but a seven-month period without a decision or clear communication is discouraging. As an early-career researcher, this kind of uncertainty is particularly frustrating, as it affects planning, resubmission timelines, and academic progress.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript, then one member of the editorial body contacted our corresponding author instructing that an American scholar they suggested should be added to our manuscript. They claim that the reason is for their journal's impact factor. We found this weird and unethical and thus withdrew our manuscript from the journal.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and efficient. Although the journal regarded the manuscript as being of "considerable interest", it was deemed to have insufficient priority for publication. The Editor-in-Chief has since suggested a transfer to the ATVB journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was transfered to a Nature sister journal, then get a rejection
Motivation:
We have to draw back our submission after waiting for 5 months
Motivation:
The process for rejection was slower than anticipated. Editor suggested transfer to Nature Communications, which we did.
Motivation:
The editors rejected my manuscript eventually only for the reason they could not find enough reviewer after major revision and the previous reviewer gave very positive feedback after major redivision. And it took me over one year for waiting the final rejection.
Motivation:
It was fast, and the reviews were essential
Motivation:
During my submission process, I found the Journal Finder tool useful in identifying this journal as a potential fit for my manuscript. However, my paper was desk-rejected despite its topic being closely related to previously published studies in the journal. While I respect the editorial decision, I would have appreciated clearer guidance on the reasons for desk rejection, which could help authors assess fit more accurately. Overall, the submission platform and communication were professional and efficient.
Motivation:
Too long for the first decision!!! A terrible experience
Motivation:
Desk rejection after internal editorial review. Apparently more than 50% of submissions are desk rejected. Would have been nice to have a little hint what differentiates papers being sent out.
Motivation:
Manuscript was reviewed by two people. One gave very minor revisions, all text based, the other wanted a thesis of new experiments done. Even though this was accapted with minor revisions, the editor wrote back two days later saying they changed their mind. Easily the most unprofessional journal out there.
Motivation:
Simple desk rejection for lack of space.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We submitted our paper to the journal on 2 Dec 2025. It then remained stuck in "With Editor" status for nearly three months until we withdrew it. Despite multiple enquiries, we received no meaningful information, no updates, and no resolution whatsoever. The lack of response was truly astounding.
Motivation:
The editor did not engage with the manuscript. The sole reason given — 'Bayesian reasoning in ethics is not a new idea' — misidentifies the paper's thesis, which concerns the structural isomorphism of moral and empirical reasoning, not a novel application of Bayesian ethics. A one-sentence desk rejection that misreads the central argument is not editorial judgment.
Motivation:
The editorial decision was communicated very briefly, stating that “there is no significant scientific advancement in this study to merit publication in Agricultural Research.” While I respect the editorial process, I believe that more detailed and constructive feedback would be beneficial, especially for early-career researchers, as brief or dismissive responses may discourage motivation. The submission platform itself was easy to use.
Motivation:
The editorial decision was made without sending the manuscript for peer review. While the communication from the journal was polite, the lack of review process meant there was no substantive feedback on the manuscript. This approach may be discouraging, particularly for early-career researchers, and limits the opportunity to improve the work based on expert input.
Motivation:
No information, but the desk reject was at least fast.
Motivation:
Plain desk reject. Let's move on...
Motivation:
Very gruff, with zero input on the why.
Motivation:
Desk reject time was more than twice what was advertised.
Motivation:
The review process appeared subjective and, in my view, did not reflect the level of professionalism typically expected in academic peer review. I would expect greater transparency, professionalism, and consistency in the editorial process.
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 18 September 2025. During the entire period after submission, the status remained “Article Received by Journal.” There were no updates, no communication from the editorial office, and no indication that the manuscript had progressed to editorial screening or peer review.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
Motivation:
The editorial decision at Work and Occupations is a classic case of methodological gatekeeping. For a journal in the social sciences, their refusal to value qualitative depth and theoretical saturation over raw numbers is frustrating. They treat "generalizability" as a purely quantitative metric, completely ignoring the power of thick description and localized conceptual unpacking in the Global South. This journal is interested in the subject of work, but clearly lacks the sociological imagination to respect the depth of qualitative research.
Motivation:
Apparently we didn't make the "work that makes a really substantial and new contribution to the discipline, and speaks to a general political studies audience" criterion. Would have appreciated this evaluation a bit more quickly.