Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviews we received were very helpful and to the point. We were therefore highly disappointed when the only reply we received upon submitting a revised version - which we thought addressed the concerns raised in the reviews - was an outright rejection without any motivation whatsoever. Even upon inquiring we received no explanation for the rejection from the editor.
Motivation:
Long time for review
Motivation:
In advance, I presented the paper at the EGOS conference, incorporating virtually all feedback on the short paper, the long paper and the presentation (feedback was great and constructive). Then I submitted the article to OS, waited three weeks and received three totally destructive sentences that the paper was poor quality and immature (after someone apparently looked at the paper for probably five minutes), leaving me without any constructive comments or arguments on how to improve the paper.
Motivation:
After spending hours to adapt my manuscript to the format and style of PeerJ Computer Science and submitting it to this journal, an editor decided after only 1 day that it was unsuitable for the journal's topics, rejected the article, and suggested to resubmit somewhere else.
The editor wrote that the article was more adapted for statistics journal than for PeerJ Computer Science.
I totally disagree with his/her decision.
The editor wrote that the article was more adapted for statistics journal than for PeerJ Computer Science.
I totally disagree with his/her decision.
3.3 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal have a rapid peer-review process and friendly submission system. The reviewers proivded pertinent comments to help the authors shape the manuscript in a strong and readable manner. In addition, the communication with the assigned assistant editor was pretty smooth, and she responsed swiftly and fully answered the questions we raised. This is the first time that we submit our research to this journal, and we suggest those who prefer a short period of peer-review process to submit their studies to this journal.
9.6 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Despite some grounded and constructive comments from another reviewer, one reviewer only criticized English language issues. It is a bit harsh but within a reasonable scope.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
Motivation:
Fast
Motivation:
We received two reviewer reports from Molecular Pharmaceutics. The first reviewer advised the editor to accept the manuscripts with minor changes. Reviewer two advised the manuscript should be sent to another journal. The Associate Editor, based on the two reports, decided then to reject the manuscript. However, both reviewers, specially reviewer one, had great comments on our manuscript's contents, which will improve greatly the quality of our work.
Motivation:
The review process was smoother than we expected. The editor was very responsive and professional. The manuscript was very much improved than the initial state, with an increase of 60% figures.
Motivation:
Straightforward rejection: the editor considered our paper out of scope there. Very strict...
Motivation:
An editor stated that "other venues should be considered for this paper"
Motivation:
Fast review process. First review report very short, second very elaborate.
Motivation:
Very smooth process and responsive editorial team, my favorite editorial process so far!
Motivation:
Editor argued that the concepts were not clear in the front end and they were not link to the literature. Fair enough because there was an special section for it just after the introduction that the editor clearly did not read. Overall, fast review with rapid responses from managing editors.
Motivation:
The editor is efficient. The review comments are helpful to improve our paper. We have made substantial additional changes than the reviews required so it takes more than the required revision time frame (30 days). Absolutely recommend for colleagues in computational biology.
Motivation:
Editor rejection was based on the fact we had a combined Results and Discussion section, even though pretty much every paper in this journal follows such format. Very long waiting time for an editorial rejection and very questionable reasons for doing so.
Motivation:
A very slow initial decision. I have published in this journal multiple times before, and the past handling editor was much better than this one, who did not catch the major points of this paper.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and fair: approximately six months from original submission to publication on line, including two rounds of revision. Very helpful reviewer reports. Excellent overall experience.
Motivation:
The reviewer suggested that I use longitudinal data, but my research funding cannot support it
Motivation:
The first review round was quite long. After we sent the inquiry to the editorial team we quickly received a reply with explanation that they are still looking for the suitable reviewers. However, the reviews we recieved provided good guidence which really helped us to improve the manuscript. Each of the three reviewers covered different aspect of the paper which was very useful because the research was interdisciplinary.