Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 was clearly into my field, and gave me a "Revise and Resubmit" with some precious suggestions.
As for Reviewer 2 instead, who suggested "Reject", s/he seemed not to be really into my field (or s/he seemed to follow a, say, competing school within the same field). S/he suggested me to take into account theories which have little or nothing to do with the one I investigated in my paper, and made some assertions without justifying them. Also, her/his observations went not beyond page 7 (over 32), which suggests that s/he made very little effort to understand the content of the paper (s/he said that some definitions were unclear, but in reality they were formulated in a way which is standard in the field).
As for Reviewer 2 instead, who suggested "Reject", s/he seemed not to be really into my field (or s/he seemed to follow a, say, competing school within the same field). S/he suggested me to take into account theories which have little or nothing to do with the one I investigated in my paper, and made some assertions without justifying them. Also, her/his observations went not beyond page 7 (over 32), which suggests that s/he made very little effort to understand the content of the paper (s/he said that some definitions were unclear, but in reality they were formulated in a way which is standard in the field).
Motivation:
Quick and courteous from the journal to provide a quick internal review from the editors to say that the manuscript does not fit with their scope.
Motivation:
the decision was quit. It is good that the EIC did not drag te paper
Motivation:
The editor read rather carefully the manuscript, which he found quite interesting but nevertheless not particularly insightful in terms of evidence for wider audiences. Several, sound, reasons were given for the desk-reject, which were very helpful for us in order to select a more appropriate journal. It is not common for editors to give that much attention to a paper that does not proceed to peer-review, so we are very grateful to the editor for his detailed and constructive feedback.
Motivation:
The first review round took unexpectedly long. It felt like the editor initially hesitated to send it out to reviewers.
Motivation:
The editor was professional and very kind. One reviewer was quite nasty in some comments mainly driven by prejudices than by experimental evidence. However, all things considered, I am satisfied about the final outcomes. I guess that reducing the time from the submission to the first review round (8 months) would be appreciated by the authors (this does not happen only because of the covid-19). Overall, if in future I will have the opportunity, I will consider this outlet again for my studies.
Motivation:
The journal does not send a message that the review process is complete. You need to know this and track it yourself on the site so as not to miss the deadline.
Motivation:
it took more than five months to hear from the journal. I was not sure if they would like me to resubmit once I revise the manuscript according to their feedback so I sent an email. They did not even bother to reply my email since 19th of February. So professional...
I wish I did not waste my time with them at all.
I wish I did not waste my time with them at all.
Motivation:
Desk reject
Motivation:
This is a great journal, even if the process was pretty long. This happened due to the reviewers, not due to the Editor. After the first major revision, the original 2 reviewers did not accept the invitation to review the revised manuscript, therefore the editor had to find a new reviewer. After the second round (minor), the paper had been accepted within a week.
Motivation:
It was sent out for assessment to scientific board advisor after two days, then in their hands 11 days, then another 13 days back under assessment, presumably in debates between the editors as to whether to send for review. This was as a full article, in the extra long online format, 8000 words. I wish they had a faster process, but I do appreciate that they bring in input from leaders in the field who are actual scientists. I also very much appreciate that this journal is produced by the AAAS, and is thus a product of an association of practicing scientists, and is not for profit. I feel that they are less influenced by the push for "trendy" science than the other for profit publishers.
Motivation:
My comments on a paper published in QJEP, to which I previously had been a reviewer for other journals, were summarily rejected by the editor-in-chief. Although she claimed to have carefully read the comment, she showed no knowledge of its content. Other considerations, which were not explained to me, must have played a role.
Motivation:
The journal took a really long time in finding someone to review the manuscript. When they eventually found a reviewer, the reviewer regrettably later abandoned the review. So they had to find another reviewer. They were quite friendly though and kept me informed as to what was occurring. I realize the review process in my case is almost certainly an outlier.
Motivation:
Nice and quick comments. After this article was suspended for a long time.
Motivation:
I appreciate the speed, and very much the fact that the editor responded in depth to my inquiries. I do however find the trend towards regarding non mammalian model organisms as second class to be very short sighted. If the bar is much much higher to publish in these organisms, the publishing industry is essentially driving groups that work on these things out of business. The in vivo rigor that such inquiries provide will thus be increasingly lost from the scientific enterprise.
Motivation:
Even though one of the first reviewer reports was really biased, and even offensive, the editor was really cooperative and provided me with solid advice. The publication was timely. Recommended!
Motivation:
Completely random process. Change of reviewers in the middle of the review process, editor is fully out of her depth and was not able to consolidate conflicting demands. Really, really bad communication. Will never submit here again and also inform my peers.
Motivation:
The editor seems to solely relying on reviewers’ comments and didn’t consider the authors’ arguments. 2 out of 3 reviewer were not qualified to judge the paper given the questions asked.
Motivation:
Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.