Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The handling times by the editor were very long. After R1 reviews were completed, we had to ask about the progress, only after which we got the decision.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Motivation:
The reviewers failed to recognize that we submitted a communication and expressed dissatisfaction with the limited inclusion of just two figures. Their feedback included a mix of inaccuracies and irrelevant suggestions, such as altering bond lengths and the molecule's name. In the end, only a few questions from one of the reviewers proved genuinely constructive. The second reviewer provided an extensive 28 comments, with roughly 20 of them being redundant and unhelpful.
Motivation:
This has been the worst journal I dealt with.
We wait for 45 days, than for 45 working days and still nothing. Then we wrote to the office and they explained they are in a search for a senior editor, since no one was willing to handle our paper. Then the editor was finally found. From the end of April until the beginning of August, they could not find 2 reviewers. Then we drew back the paper.
We wait for 45 days, than for 45 working days and still nothing. Then we wrote to the office and they explained they are in a search for a senior editor, since no one was willing to handle our paper. Then the editor was finally found. From the end of April until the beginning of August, they could not find 2 reviewers. Then we drew back the paper.
Motivation:
This journal has excellent work flow. The editors-in-chief are prompt and reviewers are on a high level.
Motivation:
The first round of review was fast (2 months) and the editor spared us from considering additional problems suggested by the reviewer. The report felt like the referee did not completely understand the problem in consideration.
Motivation:
The review was not helpful. Editor failed to get enough reviewers and did not care about it.
Motivation:
Very disappointed about Nature Geoscience and the editor (Dr. Richardson).
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
Motivation:
It took a very long time to process the submission and if I did not email the editor, it could take even longer. Two reviewers offered very limited ideas to improve the paper and so, the review of the RR submission should not have taken a long time but it did. Again, I had to email the editor who seem to be too busy to handle.
Motivation:
Very long time before first response from editor. In fact, never received a response based on the content.
Motivation:
The first reviews was provided us in few months which one of it suggests us only to change some typos and cite his works. Than after 5 months (we sent many mails to remember) they sent us 3 short reviews with other reviewers (the previous one probably didn't show up), that suggested which one of it suggested us to reduce the number of references and the length of the paper. At least the paper is published but the quality of the reviews and the time spent waiting the response for us was to excessive.
Motivation:
The two reviewers provided solid comments, and the editorial staff was very responsive when inquired about the status of the paper.
Motivation:
The journal offers a rapid and transparent review process, and the feedback from the reviewers greatly assisted us in enhancing the manuscript to make it more thorough and readable.
Motivation:
It went out to review on the day of submission itself. Its editorial handling and the review process was fast
Motivation:
Very helpful and friendly reviews even when it was a rejection. I improved my research project so much based on reviewers' and editor's comments.
Motivation:
Internal organization seems to be in great need of optimization. Support either answers incorrectly or even after several queries not at all for weeks.
Motivation:
Upon acceptance, authors made the payment in April 2023. However, until now (September) the paper has not been published. We have contacted PLos One too many times but received no response from the journal regarding to when the paper is to be published online. We consider the action of Plos One to be very unprofessional and perhaps unethical.
Motivation:
1- You don't have to spend half a year of your life and of the authors' life to reject their work, you sent your comments and reviews 3 different times, which could be done at the same time.
The first time you asked me about some clinical details which I have done.
The second time you asked to change the title, update references and do some format changes, which I did.
The last time: commenting on the abstract and rejecting my work.
All of that could have been done the first time, no need to waste your time, as such mine.
2- THE IMPORTANT point is the cause of your rejection: You angrily mentioned that the author is refusing to make changes which is previously suggested about updating the references and the maximum is 4 references more than 5 years. You really look like you didn't review my edited article well, as I sent you the file with only 3 references dated more than 5 years.
3- The last reviewers' comments carry a poor professional manner and bad communication:
You could reject my work but still, talk in a nice way using supportive sentences that encourage me to submit another work to your journal later on.
You have used a lot of abbreviations and had a quick judgment about the cause that you used to reject my work.
4- I am not sure I am the only one to be treated in such a manner by your journal reviewers. Still, I do suggest carrying out an audit, or a quality improvement project, involving most of the work submitted to your journal and doing a root cause analysis about the outcomes, the reviews, the times of reviewers' comments, and the timeline till the decision. I am sure if you do that, and are dedicated to improving your journal performance, I am sure this will improve your journal H INDEX.
5- Finally, I wish you all the best and look forward to submitting new work with you soon.
The first time you asked me about some clinical details which I have done.
The second time you asked to change the title, update references and do some format changes, which I did.
The last time: commenting on the abstract and rejecting my work.
All of that could have been done the first time, no need to waste your time, as such mine.
2- THE IMPORTANT point is the cause of your rejection: You angrily mentioned that the author is refusing to make changes which is previously suggested about updating the references and the maximum is 4 references more than 5 years. You really look like you didn't review my edited article well, as I sent you the file with only 3 references dated more than 5 years.
3- The last reviewers' comments carry a poor professional manner and bad communication:
You could reject my work but still, talk in a nice way using supportive sentences that encourage me to submit another work to your journal later on.
You have used a lot of abbreviations and had a quick judgment about the cause that you used to reject my work.
4- I am not sure I am the only one to be treated in such a manner by your journal reviewers. Still, I do suggest carrying out an audit, or a quality improvement project, involving most of the work submitted to your journal and doing a root cause analysis about the outcomes, the reviews, the times of reviewers' comments, and the timeline till the decision. I am sure if you do that, and are dedicated to improving your journal performance, I am sure this will improve your journal H INDEX.
5- Finally, I wish you all the best and look forward to submitting new work with you soon.
Motivation:
My experience with SN Computer Science was horrible: I originally submitted my article on 11th November 2022 and today, 28th June 2023, the article is still in the status "editor assigned". 7 months of time wasted!
Motivation:
This was an outright reject even though the concerns seemed minor and easily addressed. One reviewer just sounded confused, with queries for clarification, and the other suggested minor corrections and offered a dense proof of a complex supplementary equation that wasn't needed. The handling editor ignored the proof, said the minor issues "could be accounted for in a revised version", and rejected the paper based on a concern about a conceptual model used to explain the pattern. The math, data, and results weren't challenged.
Motivation:
The handling of this manuscript at all levels was somewhere between incompetent and unethical. The first pair of reviews wasn't so great, but at least resubmission was solicited. The one review of the revision was very brief and made the bizarre claims that (1) what I'm trying to do is categorically impossible, which if true would invalidate literally thousands of papers that use such approaches; and (2) there are too many papers of this kind in the literature already – not that the topic is boring, but rather that they don't want more research published in this area regardless of whether it's novel and sound. The handling editor accepted the latter argument, which is anti-scientific. The three editors-in-chief said specifically that they "discussed and agreed the decision", so it wasn't an oversight on their part.
Motivation:
The manuscript faced rejection due to being beyond the scope of the journal. However, it was subsequently transferred to another journal where it was accepted for publication.
Motivation:
"Not given a high priority rating" --> Desk reject without any information of the reasons.
Motivation:
Our study received one positive and one negative review. The negative review with the suggestion of rejection was (1) extremely short and (2) not supported by any references. One part of the reasons for rejection was extremely general and could be applied to almost any study in our field. Another part contained a few statements nearly opposite to how the methodology and results of the study were described. In brief, all these statements were either not relevant to the study (we showed that it was not the case) or not supported by any reference, law, or observations (no one knows if they are true or not). While statements without any support are just not constructive or scientific, direct misinformation about the study's limitations suggests a poor or motivated revision. After a resubmission in which all the listed potential limitations were discussed, the same reviewer just repeated nearly the same text, not providing a single reference to support his or her claims. Such revisions may break the concept of goodwill, as both our study and some other studies were described by a reviewer with a clear sign of misinformation (even after resubmission). Moreover, when an editor cannot distinguish between constructive and non-constructive revisions because of a different background or field of study, such a process becomes very vulnerable to motivated revisions.
37.9 weeks
61.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Although my manuscript was rejected, at least it was quick and painless so minimal time was wasted
Motivation:
Referee report was positive and seemed to suggest acceptance with minor revision but paper was rejected due to space limitations. It was suggested to send the article to the Asian Journal of Mathematics instead.
Motivation:
The manuscript was desk rejected within minutes of being "Under Review", apparently after being reviewed by "a team of professional editors", the Editor and an Editorial Board member. (It takes me a few days to read and provide a thorough review of any manuscript and so this speed was, euphemistically, impressive!) Frankly, I do not think this was anything beyond shunting a good paper to another venue of the publisher with the view of boosting the IF of that venue. This is a current practice with many publishers and it is a joke (a bad one).
Motivation:
The associate editor asked us to transfer to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.