Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was very rapid. Three positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable. It appears that the review process is handled by the managing editor and not the journal editor (for this special issue). I got the impression from aspects of the process that the journal managing editor pushes articles through, independent of reviewer comments. For example, they offered to put my article on a list of articles for the special issue, prior to the peer review occurring, which seemed quite suspicious. Thus, I am a bit suspicious of the integrity of the peer review process of this journal and would not submit there again.
Motivation:
Turnaround for decisions was very slow. Had to send repeated emails to inquire about manuscript status, and only after these emails did things seem to move along. Slowness seemed to be related with editorial office rather than reviewers (e.g. manuscript was accepted but was then in limbo for 13 weeks before being sent to the production team).
Motivation:
The journal processed the submission very swiftly. In a few month I received one excellent and one average reviewer report. Although the outcome was a rehection, the reviews actually quite improved my manuscript. Submission is strongly recommended, especially if you are working on monetary policy, finance and central banking related topics.
Motivation:
Paper was accepted so can’t really complain. Especially since it’s covid. But it took forever.
Motivation:
Our experience with PLoS One was a disaster. The manuscript was re-assigned to different editors multiple times and after 1 year we decided to withdraw the manuscript because we never received a first decision. Upon withdrawing the manuscript the journal provided us with the comments from one reviewer. Interaction with the journal was infuriating and 9/10 times we just got boilerplate responses.
Motivation:
The manuscript submission site would benefit from more informative status updates - I didn't know whether my manuscript had gone to review until it was rejected with the reviewer comments. The editor implied they may have published if it had been a multicentre study but this was of course obvious when it went for review so unsure what the point of peer review was in this case.
16.0 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was first presented at an international conference and was invited for a journal.
Motivation:
There were two initial reports on the paper. The first was positive, it contained important criticism and asked for a major revision. The second was negative, it misused anonymous peer review system to promote opinion which does not stand open discussion (see the last section of https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05141). In my reply to the Editors I justified the above by considering the referee's comments one by one. The Editors suggested a major revision (even before receiving my criticism of the report). I do not know whether the Editors sent my criticism to the second referee or not. I received no reply to my criticism from the second referee.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
Motivation:
It was a long review process with multiple revise and resubmit. But it was all very professional and the final paper that was accepted was much better than the original submission, thanks to the external reviewers.
Motivation:
Prompt and courteous response from the editor. I received the impression that they had actually read the manuscript so it would seem a fair decision.
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection. "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review. We recommend that you consider a more specialized publication venue for this work."
Motivation:
This journal sent the manuscript to an external reviewer after one day of submission. However, the reviewer has few comments and these comments are not related to the main topic, methodology, design, or the results. I received the decision with rejection after one month. I wished if the comments came from a reviewer who can provide critical feedback on the topic.
Motivation:
I submitted the article to this journal as part of a pre-exisiting special issue project it was part of - even so, it was desk rejected for not being coherent to the aims&scope - which in itself I understand but does not make much sense to me for an article already part of the special issue that had been proposed by the special issue editors.
Motivation:
The editorial office did every executive affairs in a good way. However, the quality of reviewer comments were really questionable.
Two reviews were sent to me, one of them was accurate and helpful. However, the other one was very short and vague. He/she advised for the rejection, while it was clear that he/she did not even read all parts of the manuscript.
Two reviews were sent to me, one of them was accurate and helpful. However, the other one was very short and vague. He/she advised for the rejection, while it was clear that he/she did not even read all parts of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Received great comments. The overall period, from submission to publication, is longer then what I expected. However, its worth it
Motivation:
Provided good comments to improve my manuscript. The process was efficient.
Motivation:
This is an excellent journal for publishing an occupational health research papers. Their dealing with the author and transparency is excellent.
Motivation:
Fast and positive
Motivation:
Thorough review process with meaningful input. Length of time required for initial and secondary review seems more than reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process was quick, the reviewers knowledgeable and insightful. The tone of the reviews was polite and friendly, the editors were helpful and decisive , as well as swift in their decisions. Absolutel no negative aspect to be mentioned.
Motivation:
The processing was very fast and well handled.
Motivation:
The reviews were of intermediate quality. Negative points were that the first reviewer mainly wanted us to cite some literature. The second reviewer said that the theoretical focus does not fit to the journal and we should add more empirical results. I think the editor should decide this question at the beginning before sending the manuscript out for review. Therefore, this should not be a major concern for the reviewer.
However, both reviewers also had some valid points.
However, both reviewers also had some valid points.