Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review comments was very informative and useful.
Motivation:
One month and a half is a very long time for a desk reject.
Motivation:
The duration of the first review took 8 months, that is very long. From the 3 review reports received, 2 of them were very positive and constructive whilst the third reviewer was very negative and very rude. His criticism was not based on the scientific content of the manuscript but rather on what he thought was appropriate to address in the article.
Motivation:
I submitted our paper as a "Presubmission Inquiry". The editor(s) responded very quickly, and pointed out that they don't think our paper would be "broadly useful to the community" and recommended against a full-fledged submission. Overall, the process saved a lot of our time and the editors' and reviewers'.
Motivation:
The Journal rejected the manuscript because was not able tp find reviewers
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and very constructive.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.
The feedbacks from the reviewers and the editors helped us a lot to improve the article.
Motivation:
Very fast review process and expectations were made very clear by the Reviewers and Editor. The reviews were deservedly critical but helpful for revisions. A great, professional experience.
Motivation:
Two months after submitting the manuscript, the editor sent it to my own thesis director for evaluation. This mean that they did not even check that the potential reviewer and the author belong to the same department of the same institution. When my advisor notified me about the situation I have contacted the journal stating that it is ethically wrong to send a manuscript to someone from the same institution for evaluation. They did not even apologize and simply said that they have too much work, which is very disrespectful because all of us have too much work.
I do not know who evaluated the article afterwards because it seems like they send the manuscript to anybody without even checking their institution. The reports were really bad since their main argument for rejection was that they were 'not convinced' by my argument. Nothing serious about methodology, theoretical sources, the analysis, or the literature review. They were just not convinced. The editor also argued that the manuscript did not fit with the Journal’s aims and scope, in this case I do not understand why this was not a desk reject and I had to wait for more than 5 months for useless reviewer reports. This experience makes me think that the editorial office of this journal is not respectful to authors, and they are not careful about how they treat early-career researchers.
I do not know who evaluated the article afterwards because it seems like they send the manuscript to anybody without even checking their institution. The reports were really bad since their main argument for rejection was that they were 'not convinced' by my argument. Nothing serious about methodology, theoretical sources, the analysis, or the literature review. They were just not convinced. The editor also argued that the manuscript did not fit with the Journal’s aims and scope, in this case I do not understand why this was not a desk reject and I had to wait for more than 5 months for useless reviewer reports. This experience makes me think that the editorial office of this journal is not respectful to authors, and they are not careful about how they treat early-career researchers.
Motivation:
The review process was painfully slow. The review opinion was split but the editor rejected.
Motivation:
At least the decision was fast.
Motivation:
The first round of review was too slow.
I'll never submit my manuscript to this journal.
I'll never submit my manuscript to this journal.
Motivation:
Editor was very responsive and peer review comments where appropriate and on point.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "xxxxx" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by three editorial board members who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell, and initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell, and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time. We apologize for the delay in rendering a decision on your manuscript.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, titled "xxxxxxx", to PNAS; the results of our assessment have led us to the decision to decline to consider it for publication at this time.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
PNAS is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish high-impact research of general interest to the scientific community. Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled 'xxxxxx'. Having considered it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues, I am sorry to say that we are not able to consider it for publication in Genome Biology.
As you may know, at Genome Biology we do consider it important that new findings in the submitted work represent a significant advance over previous studies and are of interest to a wide readership of biologists. I should also explain that we receive many more manuscripts than we can publish and our threshold for certain types of studies is raised gradually as specific fields evolve. Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists. We would be looking for more significant follow-up.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled 'xxxxxx'. Having considered it carefully and discussed it with my colleagues, I am sorry to say that we are not able to consider it for publication in Genome Biology.
As you may know, at Genome Biology we do consider it important that new findings in the submitted work represent a significant advance over previous studies and are of interest to a wide readership of biologists. I should also explain that we receive many more manuscripts than we can publish and our threshold for certain types of studies is raised gradually as specific fields evolve. Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists. We would be looking for more significant follow-up.
Motivation:
The quality of reviews are excellent, which helps improve our paper enormously, but the whole process is too slow and long.
23.4 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Two reviewers made some constructive suggestions, but the editors added several remarks that went far beyond the reviewers request (which kind of felt strange as their reviews were not double blinded). The criticism was helpful, yet, could also have been addressed in another revision.
The journal was rather slow in handling the manuscript; decisions about the initial submission and the revision were only sent out when more than four months have passed and I asked about the status
The journal was rather slow in handling the manuscript; decisions about the initial submission and the revision were only sent out when more than four months have passed and I asked about the status
Motivation:
The review process is very slow in comparison with other open access journals