Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
very fast review process
Motivation:
Worst journal and editorial team. They rejected my manuscript after two month because they found similarity with another paper: the preprint version of the same manuscript at arxiv!!! They didn't realize this even though it was allowed in Guide For Authors.
Motivation:
The review process took a very long time (especially after the revision). We received two reviews.
One of the reviewers didn't like our paper (possibly because we didn't cite her\him) and was abusive in their language.
In the second round the comments both reviewers raised new issues which are provably wrong.
One of the reviewers didn't like our paper (possibly because we didn't cite her\him) and was abusive in their language.
In the second round the comments both reviewers raised new issues which are provably wrong.
Motivation:
Four reviewers provided useful information, but one was quite abusive. The editor separately sent the additional negative review, which appeared to have access to personally identifiable information about one of the authors. This review also provided absolutely no content-based comments. When the senior author addressed this with the editor, the response was that they were under an ethical obligation to forward all reviews even if they were derogatory and personally attacked an author. We disagree with this statement, are concerned about the blinding procedures, and believe that this journal perpetuates a negative academic environment.
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My manuscript was in peer review assignment for six months. It was rejected a few days after the submission system switched to 'In peer review'. The single review report received was dismissive and seems likely to have come from the author whose work in the journal I was criticising.
Motivation:
Decision-making time too long, helpful feedback
Motivation:
Good support during the submission process
Motivation:
Relatively slow review process. After the required reviews were completed, the paper landed on the editor's desk and stayed there for a month. Reviews were of OK quality, but most points regarding methodology were false as they argued in exactly the opposite direction that the paper did.
Motivation:
After 1 month of submission the paper was initially rejected based on the use of a specific design which was not used in the paper and was factually incorrect. Upon appeal the paper was reassessed and sent out to review, and the resulting reviews (after 2 months and few days from the reassessment, 3 months and few days after initial submission ) were informative and raised legitimate concerns mainly based on the discussion of background literature and discussion of the results. However no specific reason was provided for the rejection.
Motivation:
Quality of reviews was averaged as one external reviewer was excellent, however, the second reviewer was very bad - their review contained errors, false information, no references to back up their comments and asked for additional information/data that was completely irrelevant to our study. The flaws in the second review were raised with the editor who refused to seek a third reviewer or investigate further. Extremely disappointed with the second reviewer and the editors handling of our manuscript. We decided to publish in another journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out important limitations that we did not emphasize as much as they would have liked. Since we cannot address them with the data used (as discussed in the paper), it's only fair for the editor to reject the paper. The whole process was a bit slow, though...
Motivation:
"As you may know, we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. In such cases, our decision is based on the paper’s appeal to Nature’s broad audience, rather than a judgment of its technical robustness. "
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
Motivation:
Typically, desk rejections in JACS happened to us quickly. In this case, it was a very unpleasant surprise to get a desk rection after nearly a month long wait without any feedback whatsoever.
Motivation:
Associate editor considered the topic interesting enough but recommended immediate rejection based on what they thought were (quite secondary) issues in the analyses. This is the type of feedback I expect to receive from reviewers and be given the chance to respond — not the type of feedback that should justify desk rejection, in my view.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
Motivation:
very long review process!