Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process looked normal to start with. Three reviewers gave constructive comments. However, the editor bolded the instruction in the email body that insisted us to use their language editing service, although no reviewer has requested it. This is not surprising as the cost of such a service is the same price to the open access fee.
The language editor does not seem to understand research, nor statistical method. The language editor changed the manuscript into a student’s thesis style. The language editing itself changed our precise description into a wording mess. Somehow, The language editor even changed our method and asked why we did not mention it early (of course not, because we did not use that method at all).
After we completed all reviewers' requests and added additional data, the editor personally requested additional data which were not requested in the first peer-reviewing round, and those data are only confirming the existing information using a different method. Such data do not add any scientific value, yet the editor insisted we repeating the whole study to provide these new data. It seems that he ignored the fact in our method that it takes 6 months to repeat the experiment involving animals. It is questionable whether this editor understands basic research. We did not want to respond to such an unethical request and then the manuscript was rejected.
After we checked out the wiki page for the editor-in-chief for this journal/publishing house (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Spandidos#cite_note-:0-5), we decided not to appeal.
The language editor does not seem to understand research, nor statistical method. The language editor changed the manuscript into a student’s thesis style. The language editing itself changed our precise description into a wording mess. Somehow, The language editor even changed our method and asked why we did not mention it early (of course not, because we did not use that method at all).
After we completed all reviewers' requests and added additional data, the editor personally requested additional data which were not requested in the first peer-reviewing round, and those data are only confirming the existing information using a different method. Such data do not add any scientific value, yet the editor insisted we repeating the whole study to provide these new data. It seems that he ignored the fact in our method that it takes 6 months to repeat the experiment involving animals. It is questionable whether this editor understands basic research. We did not want to respond to such an unethical request and then the manuscript was rejected.
After we checked out the wiki page for the editor-in-chief for this journal/publishing house (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Spandidos#cite_note-:0-5), we decided not to appeal.
Motivation:
I was really impressed with the way the journal handle the submission. The review process was quick and fast. We received really nice feedback from the reviewers, which has helped in improving the readability of the paper.
Motivation:
At first, the manuscript received two positive reviewer reports asking for revision. In the second round, one reviewer suggested minor revisions while the other said that even though the paper was strengthened it still needed more work. In the third report, a new reviewer was introduced whose report was also in a positive tone asking for revisions. The fourth time, I have only received one reviewer report from a new reviewer who briefly stated that the manuscript was not adequate for the journal (stating that the sampling was too limited and arguing that the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal).
Complete waste of my time and the time of previous reviewers since all of their reports were positive. The new reviewer (Reviewer 5 as it has been named by the journal) was also pretty rude and the report was not constructive at all, lacking any kind of suggestions. I have lost 9 months with this journal and it was the worst experience I ever had with a journal. I strongly recommend everyone to stay away.
Complete waste of my time and the time of previous reviewers since all of their reports were positive. The new reviewer (Reviewer 5 as it has been named by the journal) was also pretty rude and the report was not constructive at all, lacking any kind of suggestions. I have lost 9 months with this journal and it was the worst experience I ever had with a journal. I strongly recommend everyone to stay away.
Motivation:
The review process took a very long period of time, about 8 months, to conclude rejection.
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Your manuscript has been deemed unsuitable for publication with Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations and is thus rejected.
Motivation:
Rejection was based on one reviewer (that seemed a bit short to me). However, the comments of the reviewer were interesting and helped us improved the paper.
The editor also suggested another journal in which to submit after corrections (that was a good idea even though I already sumbitted to that journal and had a very bad experience).
The editor also suggested another journal in which to submit after corrections (that was a good idea even though I already sumbitted to that journal and had a very bad experience).
Motivation:
Professional editorial office. Reviewers seemed to be the experts in the field. There were a lot of reviewers though (5 of them!) and all questions need to be properly addressed. The manuscript was much improved after the reviewing process.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews (including those from both peers and editors) is excellent. They certainly demand the highest standards and, based in our own experience, manuscripts should benefit from so many readings.
The main problem in our process was the time required to achieve a final decision. We understand the pandemic times are significantly longer than usual and that the time reviewers take to submit comments is out of control of the journal. However, during our review process, most of the time was spent in the editors’ desks, with very minor additional input from them. Only at the very end of the review process we received significant suggestions from the editors.
Excluding the time issue, the review process is top quality and is worth submitting MSs to ASD, specially when authors are under low pressures for keeping up publication rates (which is rarely the case).
The main problem in our process was the time required to achieve a final decision. We understand the pandemic times are significantly longer than usual and that the time reviewers take to submit comments is out of control of the journal. However, during our review process, most of the time was spent in the editors’ desks, with very minor additional input from them. Only at the very end of the review process we received significant suggestions from the editors.
Excluding the time issue, the review process is top quality and is worth submitting MSs to ASD, specially when authors are under low pressures for keeping up publication rates (which is rarely the case).
Motivation:
The first review-round took a bit long, but the reviews were constructive and there was no pressure on the revision.
Motivation:
"it would not be competitive in the review process "
Motivation:
Overall, I found the Science Advances submission and review process pretty decent. Not the fastest turnaround, and the coauthor permission forms required at the revision stage are cumbersome. However the journal admins were very responsive and helpful when reaching out.
Motivation:
The desk-research came in very quickly, which is very useful, since we could submit the paper elsewhere. However, we felt that the standard/automatic letter that we received informing about the rejection could have been more personalised and explain why the paper was not deemed suitable for this journal.
Motivation:
The editor was particular capable of finding suitable reviewers for our paper within a matter of days. All reviewers provided relevant and valuable comments, and our paper clearly was strengthened in light of those comments. Hat off to the editor of LID, who is very skilled of getting things move along quickly and smoothly.
Motivation:
The review process was generally well handled although considerably tedious due to the constant requirement to make very small changes to the manuscript to satisfy one reviewer. The editor and two other reviewers clearly found the manuscript of interest and the editor was gracious in allowing us to continue to submit and to ensure the concerns of the one outstanding reviewer were met. We were very pleased to be allowed to continue through the review process by a supportive editor. We were less happy to have a~1 month review process for one resubmission which contained only ~200 addtional words compared with the previous submission and an additional supplementary figure. In that same time I reviewed two manuscripts for other journals, and I know that PNAS has strict time limits on reviews. This was extremely frustrating.
Motivation:
It took 2 months before the manuscript went into review, probably because it is relatively difficult to find a suitable reviewer given the topic of our paper. After that, it took 1 month before the review was completed and comments were sent to us. Overall, the reviews were constructive and the editorial team was professional and efficient. One reviewer was particularly helpful in giving critical yet valuable comments which turned out to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Will definitely submit future work to JPA again.
Motivation:
The reviews came after 6 months of wait and several emails of reminders sent to the editor.
Motivation:
A good review process
Motivation:
Fast process with good reviews, even if the article was rejected.
Motivation:
The editor was quick to judge, read and evaluate the content, and the paper was made better by the referee and editor's suggestions.