All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The second review round was due to the editor's own comments (the editor had already asked for changes during the first review round, which we addressed in full) despite both external reviewers suggesting only minor changes during the first round (which we addressed in full).

Motivation: The reviewers' reports content were good and useful, but the overall process took a very long time. We even had an additional round of reviews because the submission system did not send our "response to reviewers" document to the reviewers.

Motivation: The paper was accepted but the experience was not great. The paper went through 3 rounds of revision in total. After the first round of revision, two out of three reviewers reccomended acceptance, whereas a single unsympathethic reviewer was still not satisfied about the extend of the revision (which is fair enough of course). In such situations one would normally expect editor to either go with the majority and accept the paper, or enlist an additional reviewer, but in any case give the authors the opportunity to further amend the paper. Instead they rejected it stating we didn't adddress this reviewer's comments (which wasn't true but no specific comments on this were provided, even after inquiry) but, at the same time, invited us to address them and resubmit it as a new paper. The only sensible explanation I could think of is they bring down submission-to-publication times (which of course will be nominally shorter if one considers every revision round as a new paper) by doing that. So that was pretty awkward, but we eventually did what they asked and resubmit as a new paper to avoid having to start from scratch with a different journal. The "new" paper was eventually accepted after one more round of revisions.
The really annoying part of the whole process was that all communication went through an obviously clueless editorial assistant who seemed only focused on getting us to resubmit as fast as possible, rather than allowing us proper time to address the reviewer's comments. All resubmission deadlines they gave were extremely short (1 or 2 weeks), which was not consistent with the amount of revision requested by the reviewers. We generally respected the deadlines, but nonetheless they kept spamming us every 2-3 days, also during weekends, asking about the status of our paper (all authors mind you, not just the corresponding one) and reminding us to resubmit the paper as fast as possible.
All in all a bad experience, I won't submit there again.

Motivation: Very good review system and very interesting reports from the reviewers. The editor also made some requests with which we did not agree; we explained our reasons and he was okay with them. A good experience.

Motivation: The journal kept me up to date with the review process; the feedback was extensive and helpful. I found the journal to be supportive and helpful throughout the process.

Motivation: One reviewer was adamant that the ideas presented were of 'no physiological relevance' and yet did not give concrete suggestions on how to improve the manuscript due to what we believe is an internal bias. This is the rudest and most condescending review I have ever received, and it was clear, to me, that the reviewer did not understand the premise of the experiment, nor read the manuscript in its entirety.

Motivation: Fast & fair review. It took longer than expected to resubmit revisions due to Covid-19 lockdowns. I highly recommend submitting to this journal. Even proofs were processed unexpectedly fast.

Motivation: The reviewers' comments are quite constructive. None of these reviewers pointed out any fatal mistakes, and the editor agreed the mentioned issues are addressable. However, the editor still rejected my paper. It was very disappointing. It may be partially related to their existing good ranking, which makes the editors picky on these borderline submissions.

Motivation: The initial review process was poorly handled with one clearly inappropriate review and an editor who did not pass our revisions on to the reviewers for two months. Upon appealing the decision, the appeal was handled promptly.

Motivation: It was a pretty fast and transparent process. The review report was of good quality and reviewers put the effort into reading and reviewing the paper.

Motivation: I think it is record-breaking. They rejected my manuscript within 5 mins. I have some reservation about their reasons about the manuscript not fitting their scope (For my situation, it can be a religious talk).

At least they made it quick and did not waste the time of authors, which should be learnt by many EIC.

Motivation: Quick rejection, though unsure of the reasoning.

Motivation: The manuscript was "sent back" because the handling editor considered the title and some other details inappropriate, and asked as to change them with regard to the journal guidelines. The comments, however, came through a wrong understanding of the paper - the changes requested by the editor would have made the title completely wrong and misleading. We politely explained to the editor our point of review, and also made some changes in the abstract to avoid confusion of the reader, but the editor simply insisted on his changes, especially for the title. We then contacted the editor-in-chief, who first reacted positively and was interested in our point of view, but he then did not take any action. Therefore, we decided to retract and sent it to another journal, where it was immediately sent out for peer-review.

Also, the initial time before the editor ever saw the paper was more than 1 month, which is very long.