Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor asked us to perform a minor revision with ~10 days. We were able to submit within the given time limit. However, the editor still decided to send it for fresh reviews.
Each time the portal reflected that required reviews had been completed, yet decisions by the editor would take weeks on end. We think this time could have been saved.
Each time the portal reflected that required reviews had been completed, yet decisions by the editor would take weeks on end. We think this time could have been saved.
Motivation:
IEEE TIM did an excellent job with handling my manuscript. The requirement that a manuscript reference specifically the I&M literature is something that new authors may not be aware of. They provide a list of I&M journals to help facilitate the process.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and the reviewers did an extraordinary job!
Motivation:
Prof. František Baluška was an excellent editor of this paper, thus, I fully recommend this journal. Moreover, the publisher made the paper available online within a couple of days.
Motivation:
The review process was not particularly quick but also not extremely slow. The reviewers read the manuscript and provided helpful feedback. After a minor revision decision and minor adjustments, it was surprising that the manuscript was sent out to reviewers again.
Motivation:
Very disappointing journal to work with. Not recommended.
Motivation:
The editor stated that the article is more of a method and not a tool. However, this argument was not correct, and the proposed method led to the presentation of a new tool. The article did not appear to have been carefully studied. However, this answer was not satisfying after 3.5 months.
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out some real technical problems. However, they continually compared our algorithm against algorithms that are solving a different problem. There was some value to their reviews due to the technical points they made, but I think they would have rejected anyway due to simply not reading carefully enough to compare the algorithm with the correct competing approaches.
Motivation:
The paper was submitted to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, who is one of the most important researchers in the field of the paper.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing. Unresponsive editorial staff. No reply to two online system inquiries. Minimally helpful reviews. Overall poor process experience w this journal. They have a lot of room for improvement.
Motivation:
The quality of the review was shocking. Reviewer 1 had completely misunderstood the results in spite of a clear visual abstract. However, he did understand the methods. Therefore, the extent of their confusion is all the more confusing. I believe that reviewers are harried and short on time. This reflects in the quality of time they spend reviewing papers. I am dismayed by the role of editors at journals. They do not appear to do any sort of gatekeeping. Checking if a reviewers comments are even accurate. There is such limited investment on the part of editors, and since they are the only people in the process of publication who are actually being compensated it is a grim situation. For the apparent standard of the journal, the quality of review is well below average. This will catch up with the journal in a few years.
Motivation:
The process was too rare and extended. 6 months before I send the manuscript to a conference on the emerging market with the promise that ten best papers will be "desk accepted" by the editor. After this time, no report from the conference was received. Before the conference, the editor gives fifteen days to submit the manuscript to consideration. Then you have to pay a processing fee (USD 150) and began the review process. Six months later, we received a one-line report, and the reviewer saying did not understood the paper.
Motivation:
First, no confirmation of forwarding the manuscript to reviewer's was received (simple mistake) - otherwise straight forward and fast process.
Motivation:
The review process was very rapid. Three positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable. It appears that the review process is handled by the managing editor and not the journal editor (for this special issue). I got the impression from aspects of the process that the journal managing editor pushes articles through, independent of reviewer comments. For example, they offered to put my article on a list of articles for the special issue, prior to the peer review occurring, which seemed quite suspicious. Thus, I am a bit suspicious of the integrity of the peer review process of this journal and would not submit there again.
Motivation:
Turnaround for decisions was very slow. Had to send repeated emails to inquire about manuscript status, and only after these emails did things seem to move along. Slowness seemed to be related with editorial office rather than reviewers (e.g. manuscript was accepted but was then in limbo for 13 weeks before being sent to the production team).
Motivation:
The journal processed the submission very swiftly. In a few month I received one excellent and one average reviewer report. Although the outcome was a rehection, the reviews actually quite improved my manuscript. Submission is strongly recommended, especially if you are working on monetary policy, finance and central banking related topics.
Motivation:
Paper was accepted so can’t really complain. Especially since it’s covid. But it took forever.
Motivation:
Our experience with PLoS One was a disaster. The manuscript was re-assigned to different editors multiple times and after 1 year we decided to withdraw the manuscript because we never received a first decision. Upon withdrawing the manuscript the journal provided us with the comments from one reviewer. Interaction with the journal was infuriating and 9/10 times we just got boilerplate responses.
Motivation:
The manuscript submission site would benefit from more informative status updates - I didn't know whether my manuscript had gone to review until it was rejected with the reviewer comments. The editor implied they may have published if it had been a multicentre study but this was of course obvious when it went for review so unsure what the point of peer review was in this case.
16.0 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was first presented at an international conference and was invited for a journal.
Motivation:
There were two initial reports on the paper. The first was positive, it contained important criticism and asked for a major revision. The second was negative, it misused anonymous peer review system to promote opinion which does not stand open discussion (see the last section of https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05141). In my reply to the Editors I justified the above by considering the referee's comments one by one. The Editors suggested a major revision (even before receiving my criticism of the report). I do not know whether the Editors sent my criticism to the second referee or not. I received no reply to my criticism from the second referee.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
Motivation:
It was a long review process with multiple revise and resubmit. But it was all very professional and the final paper that was accepted was much better than the original submission, thanks to the external reviewers.
Motivation:
Prompt and courteous response from the editor. I received the impression that they had actually read the manuscript so it would seem a fair decision.
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection. "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review. We recommend that you consider a more specialized publication venue for this work."
Motivation:
This journal sent the manuscript to an external reviewer after one day of submission. However, the reviewer has few comments and these comments are not related to the main topic, methodology, design, or the results. I received the decision with rejection after one month. I wished if the comments came from a reviewer who can provide critical feedback on the topic.