Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We received three reviews. One was openly hostile and recommended rejection, one recommended acceptance, and the other minor revision. Editor ultimately decided the findings lacked novelty. Overall, the reviews were of very high quality, and we were able to address the comments/concerns and publish elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviews I received were poorly written. One of the reviews only consisted of two meaningless sentences just saying that the proposed approach may not work in real world conditions without any further comments. However, I discussed extensively in the paper that this is a first case study to check the general feasibilty.
Motivation:
After the first round, the article had a status of completion of the review for 3 months. We contacted the journal manager twice. Then we wrote to the editor-in-chief and received the article for revision in 1 hour.
Motivation:
The journal did not provide any valuable comments, it just wrote that it was not suitable. Several editors have changed, they have sent apologies that they have lost / forgotten, and so on. A good journal if you're in no rush.
Motivation:
Despite three rounds of revision, the initial manuscript was outright rejected. However, the reviewers were understanding in their first reviews and recommendend to put some more work into the manuscript. This finally caused three more rounds of revision (resubmit, major and minor revisions) and finally the acceptance. I personally think that the paper improved a lot after the initial rejection, but the comments from the major revisions did not contribute to a significantly better paper. The time scale from submission to acceptance was decent, though.
Motivation:
The first reviews were quite okay - one reviewer wanted to publish as is (or minor revisions) and the other decided against publication. In the second round, only a single report was sent, which stated that the revisions were made successfully. The other revisions were rather technical and could have been condensed.
Motivation:
The editor read rather carefully the manuscript and made several positive comments about it. Several, sound, reasons were given for the desk-reject, mainly linked to methodological concerns and some doubts regarding the innovative character of the findings. It is not common for editors to give that much attention to a paper that does not proceed to peer-review, so we are very grateful to the editor for his detailed and constructive feedback. Also, the very fast rejection (within 2 days) was much appreciated, since it allowed us to ressubmit the paper to a more suitable journal.
Motivation:
Initial round of review took 5 months due to a late reviewer. The editor waited for months before finding someone else.
Motivation:
I was very pleased with the quality of reviews. The submission site provides very coarse updates for the status of the manuscript, making it hard to tell the true status and source of holdup.
Motivation:
Reviewer is poor in conducting a review, being not understand how to use nomenclature and not properly read sample naming and claiming no explanation about equation and sample naming. Reviewer also seems not understand the field but force their self to do a review.
Motivation:
Correct and fast revision process, I recommend this journal!
Motivation:
The reviewer comments helped me to identify the weaknesses and strengths of my manuscript. When I incorporated the said changes, the quality of my manuscript was enhanced.
Motivation:
desk rejection without reasons stated
Motivation:
Excellent journal for Fluorine related work. The editor is a gentleman, unlike other ones. I applaude.
Motivation:
Response from journal: "As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to reviewers, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, even if reviewers were to certify the manuscript as technically correct, we do not believe that it represents a development of sufficient importance to warrant publication in Nature Ecology & Evolution. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal. "
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal. "
Motivation:
The process was reasonably quick, particularly since we submitted on the Easter weekend. I think they read and thought about the manuscript and gave a fair, albeit disappointing response. I greatly appreciated that they did not give just a boiler plate response and instead provided useful guidance.
Motivation:
Reviews were extremely helpful, as well as the editor's own anonymous comments. It was a bit slow but understandably so given the pandemic.
Motivation:
Despite our manuscript going to review straight after submitting, the paper was rejected. We received three fantastic and encouraging reviews, of which highlighted major text changes but did not require new analyses or state any methodological flaws. The reviews do not reflect the decision of reject, especially because the rejection was based on criteria which should have been assessed prior to sending to external review. We contested the decision but subject editor refused to reconsider, despite the positive reviews.
Motivation:
Editor's decision was largely based on few very short comments (from one reviewer), which were due to some obvious errors in understanding of the paper. We tried to bring this up with the Editor but never received a reply.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were generally good. Would have hoped it would have gone faster, but I guess that's always the case.
Motivation:
"Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers are very instructive and interesting
The only weak point is the waiting time which is long
The only weak point is the waiting time which is long
Motivation:
This journal provides a clear review process that is constructive for the manuscript revision. The time for external review is swift. In addition, the reviewers' feedback was insightful so the manuscript was shaped in a sound manner. I encourage colleagues of the healthcare arena to submit their work to this journal.
Motivation:
I felt the article was rejected really quickly (less than 1day), and based on the critics made by the Editor, it seemed that the article was not properly read.
Motivation:
The great advantage of this journal is that the response is relatively quick compared to other journals.
I started getting e-mails from the editor a week after submitting
I started getting e-mails from the editor a week after submitting
Motivation:
In favor: Quick rejection.
Against: they do not give a reason, even if the article does not have enough impact, it is understood as a valid reason but they only commented not suitable.
Against: they do not give a reason, even if the article does not have enough impact, it is understood as a valid reason but they only commented not suitable.