Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I appreciate the speed, and very much the fact that the editor responded in depth to my inquiries. I do however find the trend towards regarding non mammalian model organisms as second class to be very short sighted. If the bar is much much higher to publish in these organisms, the publishing industry is essentially driving groups that work on these things out of business. The in vivo rigor that such inquiries provide will thus be increasingly lost from the scientific enterprise.
Motivation:
Even though one of the first reviewer reports was really biased, and even offensive, the editor was really cooperative and provided me with solid advice. The publication was timely. Recommended!
Motivation:
Completely random process. Change of reviewers in the middle of the review process, editor is fully out of her depth and was not able to consolidate conflicting demands. Really, really bad communication. Will never submit here again and also inform my peers.
Motivation:
The editor seems to solely relying on reviewers’ comments and didn’t consider the authors’ arguments. 2 out of 3 reviewer were not qualified to judge the paper given the questions asked.
Motivation:
Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.
Motivation:
The reviewers were very thorough with their reviews and pointed out the methodological flaws with our study, which we were able to address. I especially liked the way the manuscript was handled by the editor.
Motivation:
I think it is better if IJHRM keep the first review response within 6 months (at maximum) and invite more reviewers for collective viewpoints from various perspectives with the expertise in field. It is normal that a high ranking journal receives 3 or 4 reviewers for a paper. The longer review process makes us tired and costs us the opportunity to pursue publication with other journal.
Motivation:
Dreadful submission process. Poor communication with the editorial office. The manuscript was desk-rejected more than a month after submission, precisely a day after a follow-up inquiry of the status of the submission was made.
Motivation:
the EIC think that the paper is too specific to business area, not general enough to social study
Motivation:
The Editor rejected our manuscript due to "insufficient green advancement", although in our opinion the positive impact on biodiesel plants could be very significant
Motivation:
It was for a special covid issue. Reviewers were fast and fair. Overall good process as have been my previous experiences with this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewer reports were very respectful and constructive. They helped me to present my research in an improved way.
Motivation:
The first decision was to make major changes. According to the author, one reviewer is not too competent for certain concepts for which he asked questions, and despite the explanation by the author, he did not understand the concept. After revising the paper according to the reviewers' suggestions, one reviewer proposed major changes again while another reviewer rejected the paper. The editor decided to reject the paper. The reviews did not help to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and constructive, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of our initial submission. The reviewers focused on the important technical issues regarding our analyses (already a cause of disagreement among the co-investigators before manuscript submission) which prodded the study authors to a reasonable/defensible position.
The only problematic aspect is the relatively long waiting time from submission to notification of first editorial decision, taking 12 weeks which is way above the journal's reported median time for this period of ~4-5 weeks, thus downgrading my response from "5 (Excellent)" to "4."
The only problematic aspect is the relatively long waiting time from submission to notification of first editorial decision, taking 12 weeks which is way above the journal's reported median time for this period of ~4-5 weeks, thus downgrading my response from "5 (Excellent)" to "4."
Motivation:
3 out of 4 reviewers were describing the paper being well-written and explicitly mention the novelty of the submitted work in their reviews. One of these reviewers had several questions/suggestions that could be answered and addressed by the authors.
On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable.
No logic behind this rejection by the editor!
On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable.
No logic behind this rejection by the editor!
Motivation:
The initial reviews were part good and useful and part unrealistic. For instance, some errors in the manuscript were correctly reported. However, a large study was also requested as a revision, which would be too big even for multiple papers. A substantial part of the manuscript might not have been properly considered at all, as an obvious but substantial mistake was found by the authors in the resubmission process but was not reported by the reviewers. Perhaps the reviewers did not have expertise in this field of subject? In addition, some rather abitrary reference was requested, which did not really fit to the content of the manuscript but nevertheless included - could be bad practice, if it was a self-reference.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
The second round of submission was quite disappointing, as each reviewer only wrote a single sentence for the review and the associate editor accepted these reviews. As a result, the reasoning was not very solid. In addition, some of the reviewers final recommendations to the associate editor and their additional comments did not match, i.e. "manuscript does not fit to the journals scope" vs "lack of novelty". This is surprising, as the contents of the manuscript seemed to fit to the journal in the first round of submission. Another reason was that the revisions were not made, which is in this case at least to some extent not justified, especially if this reasoning is not elaborated by the reviewer. In total, the review might involve conflicts of interest or biases, as the results belong to a hot topic research field and it is known that the associate editor tries to publish similar results.
Motivation:
The reviewers were not unreasonable. The editors were quite prompt at work, too. The only problem was that when it was first submitted that the paper was not reviewed by anyone for several weeks, which I guess was due to the outbreak of covid-19. Otherwise, the total time from initial submission to final decision of accept would have been less than a year instead of 14 months and 3 weeks. But I still find the experience invaluable, and firmly believe that my manuscript was greatly improved thanks to the reviewers.
Motivation:
This journal is extremely fast with the review process. Editor was excellent and review was tough but fair. It took us over 6 months to address all critiques but it was totally worth it, as a result, the manuscript was significantly improved. Following acceptance the paper was available online the same week. I was extremely happy with the review process, but very disappointed with the production process following the acceptance. The proofs were absolutely terrible. Production team made typos in the title, throughout text, figure quality was terrible, and communication with the production team was very difficult. It took us several attempts to get to the agreement and bring the manuscript to the acceptable publication quality.
Motivation:
We submitted around the time of the US holidays, which slows down review in our experience. The first round of review resulted in one reviewer recommending acceptance, one recommending minor revisions, and one recommending rejection. The first decision was a major revision, with the editor distilling the reviewer comments to help us prioritize changes that would lead to acceptance. After revision it was sent out to review again and was accepted by the journal based on the satisfied reviewers' comments. Peer review greatly improved this manuscript and the reviews and the diligence of the editor were exemplary.