Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
In principle the journal handled our submission well, although there were no status updates between submission and decision.
The quality of the reviews, however, was not what I expected from this journal. The comments were not helpful to revise the manuscript. One of the reviewers even suggested to include references to a number of completely unrelated publications, a practice that I thought was long gone.
The quality of the reviews, however, was not what I expected from this journal. The comments were not helpful to revise the manuscript. One of the reviewers even suggested to include references to a number of completely unrelated publications, a practice that I thought was long gone.
Motivation:
The communication with the journal was good. The editorial assistent took care that the manuscript, references, figures and so on were made perfect in the administrative phase. There was only one reviewer, but the critical and constructive comments were of good quality and helped to improve the manuscript. There was a delay before we resubmitted the article, but this was due to personal circumstances of the first author.
7.0 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The Journal is really very high quality. The reviewers checked the entire article and made it high-quality. Yes, it took a little time, but the article is now readable. All comments were made on the merits.
Motivation:
The Editor and Reviewers where very well informed about the subject and handled the paper competently and with high deontological standards.
Motivation:
It took the journal an unacceptably long period of time to respond to the submitted manuscript, in spite of our reminder emails. We addressed all the review comments and resubmitted, upon which the manuscript was rejected on the basis of a previously unaddressed issue. None of our attempts to engage in dialouge with the Editorial team have succeeded.
Motivation:
The journal processes are very efficient. They inform you by email or they portal what is happening with the manuscript at every stage.
Motivation:
The editor acted as a postman, delivering messages between the reviewers and authors; did not bother to review the manuscript and provide feedback, or make a decision when was needed. After the first review round it was very obvious that two reviewers said accept and one reject. Instead of making a decision then, the editor just forwarded the comments to the authors, without providing any input of theirs. There was not really anything to address; the one that was suggesting reject was not providing feedforward, just stating why the paper needs to be declined, the reasons having to do with things that cannot be changed (such as not enough demographic data collected). In cases such as this it is the job of the editor to make a decision.
Motivation:
Initially, the review process was very speedy, but then there were changes in the contact persons in the correspondence and suddenly it took a relatively long time before we received feedback on the revision of our review. This was very positive from one reviewer, but the paper was then rejected with a few arguments from the assistant editor. We could not understand why we were rejected in the 2nd round. The process was not transparent. When we asked for clarification and a re-examination, we were put off for a very long time (apparently a reviewer and the assistant editor could not be reached), we received another rejection at the end of Dec. 2023, which was not entirely comprehensible to us with regard to the arguments.
Motivation:
Good service 👍
Motivation:
O nosso artigo retornou duas vezes para correções relacionadas ao conteúdo e erros nossos na formatação. Da data de envio, submissão, aceite e retornos com correções, levou umas 4 semanas. Recomendo a publicação de vocês neste periódico.
Our article was returned twice for corrections related to the content and our formatting errors. From the date of sending, submission, acceptance and returns with corrections, it took about 4 weeks. I recommend your publication in this journal.
Nuestro artículo fue devuelto dos veces por correcciones relacionadas con el contenido y nuestros errores de formato. Desde la fecha de envío, envío, aceptación y devolución con correcciones, pasaron unas 4 semanas. Recomiendo su publicación en esta revista.
Our article was returned twice for corrections related to the content and our formatting errors. From the date of sending, submission, acceptance and returns with corrections, it took about 4 weeks. I recommend your publication in this journal.
Nuestro artículo fue devuelto dos veces por correcciones relacionadas con el contenido y nuestros errores de formato. Desde la fecha de envío, envío, aceptación y devolución con correcciones, pasaron unas 4 semanas. Recomiendo su publicación en esta revista.
Motivation:
I would like to make a short digression before telling my history. I decided to submit a paper to this journal because I was invited to review a manuscript to that journal. It was a good paper, the editor gave me 45 days to submit my report (that was a fair time) and I recommend acceptance. From the submission to online publication, the entire process took around four months.
My experience can be summarised as follows: The review process was a real nightmare and felt myself disrespected, as an author, by the way things took during the revision process.
I submitted my paper on November 01, 2022. It remained stopped for months, despite several messages I sent to the journal asking for information. I wrote to the system's manager (SM) and also to the editor. The SM usually took long time to reply to me and I always received vague answers. The editor has never answered to me, although the system (any message I wrote was throughout the editorial system) allowed me to choose the editor as the recipient of my message.
Only in August 2022 the paper was sent to review, after 10 months since the submission! After four months (December 2023) I wrote to the editor, asking again for news from my paper and saying that I had submitted my paper more than one year before. On the same day I received a final decision on the manuscript (acceptance), that leads me to wonder the following: if I had not written to the editor, my paper would still continue without any decision. This is a disrespectful treatment to authors and I do not plan to submit any paper to the journal at all.
My experience can be summarised as follows: The review process was a real nightmare and felt myself disrespected, as an author, by the way things took during the revision process.
I submitted my paper on November 01, 2022. It remained stopped for months, despite several messages I sent to the journal asking for information. I wrote to the system's manager (SM) and also to the editor. The SM usually took long time to reply to me and I always received vague answers. The editor has never answered to me, although the system (any message I wrote was throughout the editorial system) allowed me to choose the editor as the recipient of my message.
Only in August 2022 the paper was sent to review, after 10 months since the submission! After four months (December 2023) I wrote to the editor, asking again for news from my paper and saying that I had submitted my paper more than one year before. On the same day I received a final decision on the manuscript (acceptance), that leads me to wonder the following: if I had not written to the editor, my paper would still continue without any decision. This is a disrespectful treatment to authors and I do not plan to submit any paper to the journal at all.
Motivation:
The paper went through two rounds of reviewers, with all 7 (in total) reviewers satisfied, apart from a single exception. This reviewer kept making increasingly unreasonable requests and, even when those were satisfied, they were still not satisfied. The editor then chose to follow this single reviewer's decision and reject the paper, ignoring the opinion of all other reviewers. This process took 13 months in total. It would have been better if the editor had rejected the paper after the first round of reviews.
Motivation:
It appears that this was "out of scope", nothing much to argue with that, and we can move on to a different journal. However, before they could desk reject us, they insisted on using the journal template to the letter, which is an utter waste of time.
Motivation:
One of the reviewer's was completely incompetent to review this manuscript. Their comments indicated that they had no subject knowledge nor understanding of basic concepts addressed in the manuscript. The reviewer also made baseless comments about e.g. quality of the English. Such a poor quality review (the other review was positive) should not have been the basis of a rejection, especially after a revision that thoroughly and politely responded to every review comment.
Motivation:
The editor rejected the manuscript say that mix methods was not fit for the journal. However, the scope covers this design
Motivation:
Desk reject taking 1 month is way too long. Would not submit there again unless I have a previous ok from a handling editor already.
Motivation:
Even though the outcome was disappointing, I appreciated the fast decision time and a nicely written notification email from the editor.
Motivation:
The journal took about 10 weeks to reject my paper without even send it to the reviewers.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 287.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript was exceptionally long (over 100 manuscript pages). That was understandably challenging to evaluate. However, I would appreciate it if the journal implemented strategies to manage the time for evaluating manuscripts as it took 8 months from submission to first decision and 10 months from submission of 1st revision to 2nd decision.
Motivation:
Finding suitable reviewers might be challenging, yes, but the editor did not seem to invest many time in handling manuscripts for the journal regularly. Though communication was good, and after pointing to the lengthy review process, progress was made rather quickly.
Motivation:
It seems that once you have submitted an article to one of the Nature journals and they have made a recommendation for a specific journal, your chances of submitting to another journal of your choice approach zero
Motivation:
The reviewer's found issues with coming to terms or grasping the very theoretical concept that formed the initial foundation of the study. While this raises potential issues in the writing itself, it also questions the appropriateness of the chosen reviewers in that they were perhaps inadequate to consider the study at-hand.
Motivation:
I have published over a dozen peer-reviewed papers in top journals from several disciplines, and I have never encountered such a disorganized review process. The main culprit is the Editor, who let our paper sit without reviewers for four months despite my reminders. In the end, he did invite reviewers, but only one reviewer accepted the invitation to review. Then, I sent him a list of ten suggested reviewers. Instead of inviting them, the Editor just rejected the manuscript on the sole basis of one, largely incompetent review.
What a mess, and a huge waste of time. I suggest staying far away from this journal as long as the current editorial team stays in place.
What a mess, and a huge waste of time. I suggest staying far away from this journal as long as the current editorial team stays in place.
Motivation:
They suggested a transfer to AIP Advances. The lack of specifics with only "does not meet the standards for publication..." is disappointing.
Motivation:
The first review round took more than 8 months and then another 3 months for the second review round. From the first 4 reviewers we have only got feedback from 1 reviewer and the manuscript was rejected based on this only review.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 210.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Submitted manuscript on 26th April 2023. Heard that the manuscript was under review in June 2023 after emailing the team. Only one review was completed till 26th Nov 2023 and emails weren't answered at all. No timelines were provided to complete the review. Manuscript was withdrawn in November.
Motivation:
The editor mentioned that it might be more suitable for another journal with more focused aim.
Motivation:
submission to revision process is very long
Acceptance to publication takes more than one month
The procedure is very slow in this journal
Acceptance to publication takes more than one month
The procedure is very slow in this journal