Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewers were real experts in the field of agronomy
Motivation:
Quick turnaround time for the decision, but the decision was utterly unfair - both reviewers had critiques that were easy to fix. We appealed and were granted the appeal, but then did not hear back for over 3 months as the reviewers then never responded. So we withdrew the manuscript completely. Extremely disappointing handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fast, but the quality of the reviews was extremely poor. The points raised by one of the reviewers were arbitrary, as if the manuscript were not read in detail. Said reviewer asked for information that was already included in the manuscript. Very disappointing.
Motivation:
Timing is very important for many junior academicians due to the publish-or-perish pressure. The journal processed my submission very quickly. I was provided with the reports from reviewers which will most likely improve the quality of my manuscript. The processing speed and high quality of reports are the big pros. I fail to see any cons regarding the handling of my manuscript.
Motivation:
Fast, but 2 out of 3 Reviewers might be out of the field
Motivation:
Conceptual advance of the manuscript was not great enough according to the Editorial board, got the offer to transfer to the sister Journal iScience.
Motivation:
The duration of review process takes much longer amid this pandemics when compare to the previous submission . However, the editor was very helpful and informative about the manuscript status. Whenever we have any questions, she responds promptly.
Motivation:
Smooth from the beginning to the end; some useful comments from the reviewers.
Motivation:
The two reviewers and the associate editor realized that the data deserved a much better approach in the manuscript. Their comments and suggestions were very useful to change the focus of the initial approach.
Motivation:
The associate editor handled my manuscript very professionally. He was very responsive when I reached out to him to ask questions. The two reviewers provided me with very constructive comments and suggestions that significantly contributed to the improvement of the quality of my work. The overall process was very quick and straightforward.
Motivation:
One reviewer chastises us for not citing just under 40(!) additional publications. We barely made the word limit without citing them. We are glad to have the cites but its not realistic to add that many in this paper.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
Motivation:
No reason given for a desk rejection. Not too happy about such an outcome.
Motivation:
3 reviews received - 2 were ok/positive (i.e. had critical feedback but gave a green light), 1 was fairly negative but did not recommend rejection. All the critiques could have been addressed within 1-2 weeks of editing and revisions. Strongly disagree with the editor's decision, seemed sloppy and poorly justified.
Motivation:
The only reason I take out one point, is the initial waiting time for the first decision. I can understand the bulk of papers arriving at each journal's editorial office every day, but waiting for more than two months is a bit frustrating. But the whole process was very smooth and everything went fine.
Motivation:
Fast review. Make sure your files are small enough for the initial submission, total compiled PDF that you submit must be 20 MB, this includes all files including any associated manuscripts you are submitting for the editor's information. We had a delay of a few days as we didn't understand how many of the different files we needed to resize and the information was not made clear during the submission process.
Motivation:
Before submitting our manuscript to JRS, we checked SciRev. When reading the abundance of reviews evidencing the editorial slowness, we were reluctant to send our manuscript to JRS. However, since I had a previous—similarly slow but eventually successful—experience with JRS, we decided to give it a try. After all, we thought that our manuscript provided a very novel and fresh view (don't we all?).
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
Motivation:
It took just over four months for the authors to receive the reviewer comments (first round). This may have been due to the number of reviewers (4). Although, the comments received were more than appropriate and helped to improve the manuscript. I would recommend submitting relevant articles to JSOM.
Motivation:
In addition to the lengthy review process, the post-production time was extremely long. The paper was accepted July 2020, we have been told not to expect proofs of the manuscript until March 2021 at the earliest. After three rounds of external review, there was also another unexpected round of scientific review with the editor.