Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The associate editor asked us to transfer to ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Motivation:
The editor based their decision (almost) exclusively on the negative report of one reviewer, ignoring the positive reports of two other reviewers. The decision letter almost only emphasizes the negative aspects contained in the referee reports, to the point of giving a biased interpretation of what is stated in the (positive) reports. For completeness, the manuscript was sent to a fourth reviewer who advocated for an immediate rejection due to plagiarism, since a previous version of the manuscript was available as a working paper (of course, my co-author and I had written the working paper version as well). The editor stated they did not consider this report to make the final decision, which probably contributed to the rather long review process since they had to find additional reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process was very professionally handled with timely treatment by the editors. However, I felt that the reviewers were somewhat unreasonable in their reasons for recommending rejection and I wish the editor had intervened to see the big picture. Oh well.
Motivation:
The revision took more than 7 months to be accepted. The reviewers' comments were efficient though.
Motivation:
The first round of review actually resulted in a rejection from editor but with very encouraging notes on the findings. We did a very thorough reanalysis with the helpful input from the reviewers, and have significantly rewritten the manuscript. Eventually, we appealed the decision and got a second round of review with success. The process is long but rewarding and I thank the editor for rejecting our first draft.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with the editorial handling.
Motivation:
This manuscript was sent to Chem Eur J after some poor reviewing by Angew Chem Int Ed. Fortunately, based on the quality of the work, the Editor at Angew Chem contacted the EiC of Chem Eur J. The manuscript was accepted very quickly at the latter venue. I am grateful for the approach taken by the Editors of the two journals as it saves a lot of onerous work for the authors and possibly reviewers (and there is nothing more inexcusable than a desk rejection that many journals practice).
Motivation:
Comments from the reviewers are good and they suggested many changes. Overall experience is good with this journal but the review time is long.
Motivation:
Communication by editor was clear, direct and fast. The reviewers' comments were partially very helpful, and partially very unloving.
Motivation:
The speed of review and reviewers' choice were good. There was an unexpected delay during review after first revision, which can be avoided. Otherwise the process was all smoother
Motivation:
The process of submitting and reviewing the manuscript went seamlessly. The reviewers offered valuable feedback to enhance the strength of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Fast review and fair points raised by the referees.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and many of the comments were good and can be acted upon. However, getting the first round of reviews took close to 20 weeks and initially communication was not the best with the editorial team. After the first round though things got quicker. The publication process itself was smooth and people from the publisher's side were really helpful.
Motivation:
This was a reject with the possibility of sending in a revision as a new submission. One review was short and vague. The other was medium-length. It cited a bunch of papers of historical interest only, suggested additional analyses that weren't on my point, and made a key claim that just wasn't true. The editor's decision was mostly based on a personal reading: the editor wanted the text restructured and key analyses stricken. I disagreed with a lot of the feedback, but my experiences with other ecology journals have been even worse.
Motivation:
The review process was time-effective and fair. I also really appreciate the editor's wisdom, not sending out the revised version for additional review but making the decision by herself immediately (which practice is less and less common these days when editors simply act like corresponding clerks between authors and reviewers but not making real decisions). My only concern is that we have received a single peer review report, which I believe is below the industry-standard.
Motivation:
The reviewers offered constructive feedback on the manuscript, enhancing its strength and readability. The review process on the website was transparent and seamless, making this submission a highly positive experience.
Motivation:
The overall review process was good. The manuscript as send out to the reviewers quickly. Overall handling of the manuscript was very professional and without any issues. I received 2 revisions, one minor, one major. In general, the reviews were helpful to imrove the manuscript, while they could have been a bit more specific.
Motivation:
The review process is relatively fast compared to other journals, but the comments in the review reports are relatively not exhaustive.
Motivation:
The editor did a fine job. However, the editorial support of the journal as well as the publisher (BMC) desperately needs improvement! Additionally, BMC insists on supplying the email addresses of each co-author just to afterwards bombard them with spam. Very unprofessional all around.