Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Submission was easy and standard. The waiting time was very long, almost 3 months. After more than two months I got an email apologizing for the delay and that they were waiting for the second review. That review never came and the editors instead of sending it to a new reviewer decided to better reject the manuscript. Terrible editorial job.
Motivation:
All in all it took more than a year from submission to publication. The manuscript went through 3 round of reviews, mostly due to one very antagonistic referee that simply should have not been allowed to judge our paper. The reviews became more and more aggressive, to the point that we were accused to doctoring the images (by selecting one very specific timestep in our simulation that would prove our point). Instead of controlling these exchanges, the editor blatantly sided with the referee, supporting the changes he was suggesting and never moderating the conversation (at least not that we could see).
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
The typesetting of our paper was equally disappointing. The process was outsourced to an external company, in another country, and the first proofread was sent in an email that looked like phishing (not signed on behalf of the journal or the editor or the publisher, for example) and was at first ignored, prompting the journal to contact us to urge us to check the proofread. The typesetting process heavily altered key figures of our paper and changed some of the acronyms that were carefully chosen as a result of the review process. 'Journal standards' were mentioned as the cause of this and although we were consistently asked to return comments within 3 days (impossible given that the authors live in very different time-zones) our queries were answered on timescales of months.
Motivation:
Desk rejection.
Motivation:
Good timing, responsive editors and great reviewing process but the strict figure, table and word count limits can go in the way of accurate scientific reporting and readability.
Motivation:
Fast decision
Motivation:
The editorial process was faster than I expected and the editor was really responsive.
Motivation:
The Journal reject my work after 4 months, while 1 reviewer suggest it to be published, and the other one only suggest reject with one sentence that the work does not related to the journal. I do not know, whether really it needs 4 month for the reviewr to understand that the paper does not match with the journal?
I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles:
"Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
No Recommendation is made for this paper.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value.
This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate.
Reviewer 3
Comments to the author
The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented.
This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."
I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles:
"Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
No Recommendation is made for this paper.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value.
This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate.
Reviewer 3
Comments to the author
The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented.
This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."
Motivation:
3 of the 4 reviewers had blank responses. I cannot even rule out that the journal is predatory at this point.
Motivation:
Editorial rejection after 7 weeks and 4 reviewers. 3 reviewers evaluated the paper positively, only one recommended rejection without any constructive comment. After an appeal (and sending the manuscript in its revised form addressing the 3 reviewers' comments), the paper got ultimately rejected after several days by the EIC. Sad story.
Motivation:
The review process was particularly fast, probably because it was for a special issue related to a workshop.
Motivation:
One decent review and one good review. Both reviews had issues with the presentation of the results not being connected specifically enough to physiology.
Motivation:
I will appreciate the Chief Editor and Particularly the Associate editor for their positive, quick and responsible behavior. I also appreciate the reviewers for their constructive comments that improved our work significantly.
Motivation:
We waited for a long time for the review. There were 2 reviewers. The first reviewer was very kind and made good contributions. The second reviewer wanted us to add 10 more references which are totally irrelevant, and there was a name repeated in every one of them. We wrote a rebuttal letter disclosing suggested articles irrelevance with our article one by one. Thankfully, our paper was accepted after the first review. Editors and the staff were also very kind and responded to our every requirement very quickly.
Motivation:
Reviewers were real experts in the field of agronomy
Motivation:
Quick turnaround time for the decision, but the decision was utterly unfair - both reviewers had critiques that were easy to fix. We appealed and were granted the appeal, but then did not hear back for over 3 months as the reviewers then never responded. So we withdrew the manuscript completely. Extremely disappointing handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fast, but the quality of the reviews was extremely poor. The points raised by one of the reviewers were arbitrary, as if the manuscript were not read in detail. Said reviewer asked for information that was already included in the manuscript. Very disappointing.
Motivation:
Timing is very important for many junior academicians due to the publish-or-perish pressure. The journal processed my submission very quickly. I was provided with the reports from reviewers which will most likely improve the quality of my manuscript. The processing speed and high quality of reports are the big pros. I fail to see any cons regarding the handling of my manuscript.