Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast and constructive review process.
Motivation:
1/3 accept: short but okay comments and suggestions, 2/3 reject with resubmit: one-liners saying that the paper needs a lot of work without specifying any concrete changes, missing references or problems that need to be addressed
Motivation:
They have spent much time to make the first decision
Motivation:
Processing was fast and well managed.
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
JASA-EL (before being spun off from JASA, I don't know about the policy now) does not permit major revisions. The reviewers noted several items that may or may not be important, but overall they did not appreciate the concept described in the manuscript.
Motivation:
Really fast process. Editors were really engaged and reviews were of a good quality. I recommend to submit here and I would like to do it again.
Motivation:
Solid handling of manuscript. Professional and clear.
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers surprisingly said that our paper was unsuitable for the journal (and he was wrong to me), and the editor surprisingly decided to agree with him/her, so he recommended our article for rejection.
The other reviewer said that the paper was very good and could have been published with after few changes.
The other reviewer said that the paper was very good and could have been published with after few changes.
Motivation:
Very constructive, detailled comments and suggestions, which really improved the quality and argument of the article.
Motivation:
The first review process took quite a lot of time, which was a bit discouraging since we did not know whether our manuscript was being handled. Though, after the first round of review, the processing time has become reasonable. The quality of reviews was generally good and helpful.
Immediately accepted after 3.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Desk rejection took 23 days. The editor appointed was, I believe, not familiar with the discipline and the reason for rejection suggested they barely read past the cover letter.
9.3 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very long process but quite efficient
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection with transferal suggestion to Nature Communications.
Motivation:
The reason given by the editor was lack of significant novelty in terms of Lab-on-a-chip technology. He recommended to go for an application-oriented journal.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
Motivation:
Two days after submission we detected a small error and asked the editor to hold the manuscript before sending it to the reviewers, as we understood their evaluation would benefit from having the corrections already applied.
The manuscript was rejected within 24h of the resubmission, "Small receives many more submissions than we can possibly publish."
The editor offered, however, transfer to two of their sister journals with lower impact factor.
The manuscript was rejected within 24h of the resubmission, "Small receives many more submissions than we can possibly publish."
The editor offered, however, transfer to two of their sister journals with lower impact factor.
Motivation:
The processing was very fast and well handled.
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
The processing was fast and well handled
Motivation:
The processing was fast and well handled.
Motivation:
The processing was fast and accurate.
Motivation:
This journal rejected my manuscript, but it made me a reviewer
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and all process completed within a year from the first submission
Motivation:
The review process was smooth
Motivation:
The editor and the admins are not interested in replying inquiries. The paper was under review for 11 months. I have sent a few reminders to the editor and admin, and i have received no reply. Poor management.