Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The overall process was really quick. First an initial review was performed to assess the suitability of the manuscript for PRX. This was positive, after which there was another round of reviews. However, there it turned out the paper was not "seminal" enough after all. The review reports were OK and the referees knowledgeable, however one of the referees did not read the manuscript carefully in full.
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief adds reviewers until she believes she can justify the rejection that she has already decided on beforehand. The decision to reject was made even though almost all reviewers accepted the changes. I contacted the editor-in-chief twice, once during the review process and once after, but I didn't get a response on either occasion.
Motivation:
The editor gave very constructive feedback to improve the MS and thus have a better fit with the journal, thus implicitly encouraged a resubmission after revising the addressed points.
Motivation:
PAR is one of the most racist journals I have encountered. This is the third time now that I have been desk rejected on very good pieces, simply because I am not American. This is not sour-grapes, as I know that the papers were good because they got accepted at equally prestigious journals elsewhere. PAR are also incredibly slow (13 days for a desk reject) and too arrogant to provide a specific reason for rejection). My advice is that if you are not American then don't bother submitting. I won't be in the future.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 159.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This is a horrible Journal. The editorial board team doesn't seem to be working. We submitted our article for more than 5.5 months without receiving any responses from the Journal. Although we emailed Journal to ask the status of the article 3-4 times, and also contact to the personal email of the editor in chief. We feel that the Journal has no respect for the authors, and if the process takes a long time, they need to respond to our email to let us know. Finally, because we did not receive any feedback from the Journal after many attempts to contact them, we had to decide to withdraw the article to submit to another journal.
Motivation:
The 1st round of the review process was quite okay - we received some constructive feedback and we resubmitted in due time.
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Desk rejection took too long.
Motivation:
Reviewers' comments were mostly very precise and thoughtful which helped to guide the revision process.
Motivation:
Meticulous review process with high quality, constructive review reports. Very clear and encouraging communication with the editor.
Motivation:
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Motivation:
The review process was of very good quality. However, it took a long time after first submission before the manuscript was sent out for review.
Motivation:
Rejected due to limited extent advance. With this reason of rejection, I think the review process could be faster.
Motivation:
The reviewer quality was good. I expect a bit longer time required for the first decision, but it was not long as I expected.
Motivation:
Very thoughtful and thorough reviews, especially concerning our statistical analysis, which was substantially improved by the suggestions.
Motivation:
Editor in Chief is very responsive.
Motivation:
First, it took a very long period of reviewing time. Though I contacted the editorial office a couple of times, I have never spoken with the editor who was working on my manuscript. Their managing editors kept informing me that they were waiting for the comments from the third reviewer, who didn't exist based on the reviewers' comment report. One of the two reviewers was very positive and discussing constructively, which I really appreciated. The second, however, commented so briefly and not to the point at all as if he/she didn't read the text. The editorial decision was, unfortunately, made based on the second reviewer's comment.
Motivation:
suggested a transfer to scientific reports
Motivation:
Although nobody likes having their manuscript sent back without review, I must highlight that the editor was polite and constructive at all times. He was explicit in that he believed my paper was of value, however, they did not have journal space. They offered to transfer it to a sister journal. The whole process took two days.
Motivation:
professional handling of paper. After the first round, the two initial reviewers were satisfied with the revised manuscript, but the editor nevertheless invited a third reviewer leading to more (major) revisions. This felt a bit unfair but in the end probably led to a better paper.
Motivation:
I am happy with the review process of the journal.
Motivation:
All the process was fast with positive criticism from the reviewers. Good experience, in a high quality journal in the field of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers had great insights into the study and provided constructive comments to help craft the manuscript that will benefit the audience. Also, the timeframe for the manuscript revision is sufficient (90 days for major revision and 30 days for minor revision) to reorganize the manuscript in a good shape. I strongly recommend those who are interested in qualitative research to submit their work in this journal.