Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very careful internal review for this introduction (not foreseen for external review).
Motivation:
After one month of wait, we received a straight reject email where a reviewer stated that our discoveries were not confirming some scientific statements available in the literature for that topic.
That statement did not make any sense: of course, as our article was new, it contained aspects that differ from the current literature.
That statement did not make any sense: of course, as our article was new, it contained aspects that differ from the current literature.
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and the reviewers gave excellent, clear suggestions that helped improve the paper. The editors were also good with communication during the process.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and non-problematic. But the copy-editing took more than 2 months and the first edit was done by someone obviously with no basic scientific background. I had to work for two days to correct/revert the changes made during copy-editing. Figures that were clearly placed in the supporting information ended up in the main article. The copy-editing office never replied to my queries and published the article with unresolved issues and questions.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, following editorial evaluation, we are unable to consider it further for publication in Advanced Optical Materials; however, we believe that your manuscript could be suitable for a sister journal with a more focused readership. We would therefore like to offer you a direct transfer, and my colleagues will be happy to evaluate your paper further here:
Motivation:
The reviewers are friendly but the questions are not very relevent to the paper. The review time is quite long for each round.
Motivation:
The Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT) Journal is the manager of the journal that I recommend, because it has good quality with reviewers from various countries.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
4.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
All the logistics of the Journal work perfectly, perhaps the only detail is that the times in general are a bit long.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers, who evidently did not take the trouble to read the text properly, advised rejection. It was also evident that this person was not competent enough regarding the topic. The other reviewer suggested that the manuscript be revised and this reviewer was also very clear about the relevance of the contribution. The suggested changes were also not too major so that I could have sent a revision in reasonable time. Still, the editors in charge decided that the manuscript should not be published, allegedly "in accordance with" the reviews.
Motivation:
There was a small pressure to conclude the revisions before the time I was waiting for. They give me just few days.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and harmful.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and without any problem.
Motivation:
Of the two reviews, one would be solid and useful and the suggestion was to make major changes. Another reviewer rejected the paper and did not give a single comment, only writing "unsatisfactory". Such a review can be done by anyone, which I believe significantly reduces the reputation of the journal. Waiting time for reviews was within acceptable.
Motivation:
I have no issues in the process. Since submission until publication take less than 7 months.
Motivation:
The journal has a section called "short papers", where is supposed to publish small researches, specially from undergraduate students. I sent the paper to this section in the OJS, but someone change my paper to the "long paper" section. I don't know the real reason, maybe because I was PhD candidate at that time, or because they receive very few short papers. The paper was extremely short, so obviously was rejected. I explain the situation by e-mail, and quickly the paper was reviewed again by reviewers of the "short papers" section. They requested small changes and so after it the paper was published. I think the paper was previously published under pre-print, but I am not sure about it.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were very helpful, and editorial office was very responsive to queries.
Motivation:
I think was a little invasive they sent to me the contact of one company to "pay for get proof-reading". And they also remove the acknowledgement message. Unnecessary.
Motivation:
When we first submitted our manuscript, editors took a week or 10 days to decide whether or not they will send it for external review. The first external review took the longest time - a little more than 2 months. We got a major revision, reviewer comments helped us in improving our manuscript. Once we submitted this revised version and the editors were satisfied with the changes made, there were several round of minor revisions in the next 2 months till we got final official acceptance.
Motivation:
Very rapid turnaround time. Peer reviewer comments were constructive and helped improve the manuscript. Editorial office was very responsive to all our inquiries.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and harmful. After my proposal be accepted they migrated to the OJS platform.
Motivation:
After three weeks at the editorial board, I received a generic one-liner reason for rejection, which says that the paper does not meet one or more requirements of the journal. I personally believe that the true reason for rejection is because the work is multi-disciplinary and the editor, who is only versed in one discipline might not have understood the true significance of the paper. In any case, they should have gotten back to me quicker.