Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The rejection was based on a single review by a reviewer who had never published on the topic of the paper and consequently ignored the main part of the paper. The editor claimed to have read the paper but did not show any sign of knowing what was in the paper. The editor should have awaited further reviews from more knowledgeable reviewers, of whom I suggested six, before reaching a decision.
Motivation:
rejected due to large number of manuscipts received. however as the decision came out without delay, I would appreciate the editorial efforts.
Motivation:
Reviewer were constructive. Editor suggested to add recent papers from the journal.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to eLife via bioRxiv and was sent out to review after 6 days. The reviews were in after 3 weeks and they gave us an unlimited deadline to revise the manuscript due to COVID-19. Once our revised manuscript was submitted, the manuscript is passed onto to at least the reviewing editor rather than all the reviewers (I think) and the paper was accepted after a few days. Since we selected the "publish on accept" option, our paper was online later that day. We will definitely consider eLife again.
Motivation:
gave the option for transfer the paper to another
Motivation:
Positive, constructive reviews. However, after minor revisions you would expect to get the final approval a bit quicker.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled professionally and the process was smooth. I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers; I sensed that they were highly competent reviewers. One of the reviewers gave very comprehensive feedback and great ideas for a follow-up paper. I would consider submitting a paper to this journal again.
Motivation:
The editorial efforts from this journal is excellently awsome. whatever the decisions, we know it in the first day itself.
Motivation:
Although the outcome that I received was a 'rejection', this journal has smooth submission and handling processes, and the quality of the reviewing was excellent.
Motivation:
Two different reviewers made appropiate comments of our manuscript. Their positive comments were easy to answer and it would have been easy to improve the manuscript following their comments.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
Motivation:
Over three cycles of review, with two reviews each time, there were two reviewers who liked the paper and were satisfied with the manuscript, and one who would not be satisfied (who was not a reviewer until round 2). The authors were disappointed that this paper went from a minor revision (at review #1) to a rejection (at review #3), but feel the editor may have been in a bind due to that reviewer. With an average of 4 months per review, this process delayed the publication of this paper by a year and a half. Trying not to let the outcome skew our impressions of the review process, we do wish (1) a new reviewer hadn't been brought in during round 2, (2) the new reviewer's opinions hadn't been weighted above the other two, (3) the process hadn't taken so long, (4) we hadn't been asked to complete a revision after review #2, if the reviewer was never going to be satisified with our methods.
Motivation:
The desk rejection took over 1 week. In my experience this is necessarily long. Their reasoning was fine, but I had assumed it had gone to reviewers when I hadn't heard anything form them in a week.
Motivation:
The review duration was unnecessarily long.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 191.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I think six months is time enough to receive a first decision from the journal, even more considering that the paper was under review since the end of January.
Motivation:
The speed of the review process was convincible and we received good comments from two reviewers that improved parts of our discussion. From the comments we received, we found that the reviewers had good knowledge on the matter discussed in the paper.
Motivation:
Though it took longer than usual due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the editorial process was excellent. It was fair and honest, and the reviewer reports were of high quality. I usually publish in the top journals in my field, but this journal has impressed me. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
I did not expect that the reputable journal allows such careless and superficial reviews. As far as I understand, the Referee did not recommend the manuscript for a full review and further consideration because "the paper revisits the well-studied areas ..." and "there is nothing essentially new here ...". He/she didn't even try to understand the essence of our approach.
Motivation:
Editors should understand their responsibility to go through the reviewer comments and how these are addressed by authors. Proper reasons for rejection should be given e.g. specific comments that remain unaddressed.
Motivation:
This was the best and most thorough review process I have experienced so far. I am thankful to the Editor and reviewers for their excellent comments.
Motivation:
Best Review process and quick as compare to other journals
Motivation:
14 weeks after submission I sent an email to the editor inquiring on the unusual length of the review. Within one hour I received a rejection email. Who knows how long had the editor sat on our reviews, and how they made a haste decision immediately after receiving my message. This did not feel at all like a professional and thorough evaluation of the reviewers' comments, which were easily addressable. Ultimately the paper was published in a journal of higher impact and has been cited >100 times.