Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Two times some of reviewers, or editors or... I don't know, abandoned the process. First time, after more than 10 weeks without news, I sent an email and first reviewer left the process. Three days after, first revision was completed (?) and mansucript left pending of major changes. Second time, one... reviewer? editor? left the process. 17 weeks after sending the correction of minor changes, the manuscript was rejected.
After 40 weeks and two revisions, two reviewers agreed with the changes of the manuscript and it was rejected. Well done PLOS.
After 40 weeks and two revisions, two reviewers agreed with the changes of the manuscript and it was rejected. Well done PLOS.
Motivation:
A short paragraph explaining why the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal and some suggestions about what kind of journal might be more suitable.
Motivation:
It took less than two weeks from submission to receiving a rejection notice from the editor, which can be considered a moderate speed.
Motivation:
Due to reviewers' withdrawal and editorial changes, it took more than a year until we got the first decision. We only got one review, which had very few comments, primarily related to typos
Motivation:
The editorial board's assessment and informal consultations with experts took 3 months. Rejected without any report.
Motivation:
Quick desk reject.
Motivation:
A little too much time for a desk rejection with very vague reasons, but not dramatic.
Motivation:
The decision is fairly justified; however, taking 120 days for a desk rejection is unacceptable, especially given the reason provided. According to their website, such a decision could easily have been made within the stated median of 5 days. There was no explanation for the prolonged process, nor any meaningful response to my requests for updates during this 120-day period.
Motivation:
They required the manuscript submitted are comprehensive and authoritative, timely, well written and address major issues of importance to obesity.
Motivation:
- One single review with generalist comments like "You should do more experiments", "You should do more analysis", "There are still typos"..
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
Motivation:
The reviewers handled the paper promptly. The handling editor was too busy to deal with the submission and so the paper spent several weeks Awaiting Recommendation after each round of revision, totally almost 5 months. Usually, editorial decisions are made within a few days of receiving reviews. We asked for assistance from the editorial board. They replied to us politely but didn't speed anything up.
Motivation:
I submitted to RSC advances because I heard that peer review was fast and also heard that review process is fair.
Motivation:
1. 피드백이 다른 저널에 비해 빠르게 도착하였음
2. publish는 accept 되더라도 한 달 이상 소요됨
2. publish는 accept 되더라도 한 달 이상 소요됨
Motivation:
I found the reviewers comments insightful and constructive
Motivation:
Overall, the review process was fair and manageable within the given time frame. While communication (via email) with the editor was somewhat slow, the process was reasonable and transparent.
Motivation:
Very fast review, the revisions were good and with constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
As expected, the revision process for Nature Communications was long. However, the reviews were of high quality overall, and our manuscript improved during the revision process.
Motivation:
The editors and reviewers gave me high quality feedback -- from the standpoint of the writing, the structure, the content, and they even suggested sources I was not familiar with. As a new academic, it was very much appreciated. My only suggestion would be to have stayed on top of the reviewers for the first round. I lost a several months time to revise because the editor was waiting for one of the reviewers, who never did provide a review. If I had received the benefit of the remaining reviews earlier, it would have been less stressful for me. Nevertheless, the individuals selected as editors and reviewers were extremely helpful, and also friendly and caring, which I really appreciated very much. It was a great process for me.
Motivation:
The executive editor offered valuable recommendations and conducted a thorough review of the manuscript's ethical aspects. These efforts significantly enhanced the manuscript's clarity and integrity. Submitting the manuscript to this prestigious journal is strongly recommended.
Motivation:
A very slow process and I think the technical peer review of the manuscript should have been done earlier in the process.
Motivation:
For me, the entire peer review process took too long. Although the paper was ultimately rejected, the suggestions from two of the three reviewers provided inspiration and were helpful for the subsequent revision of my paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers are nice to junior researcher. Provided thoughtful comments.