Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review.
Motivation:
Reviewers comments recieved within ~ 6 weeks. Very kind reviewers comments with only slight editorial changes. However, took a while to process slight editorial changes, edits to proofs and open access. There is no way to check if your paper has made it passed the editorial stage prior to reviewers comments.
Motivation:
Although the process took more time than I expected, I received two very positive reports, with minor suggestions. They were very technical and precise. It was clear that both reviewers were of high caliber and I am not only very happy with the overall process, but also very confidend after reading the reports and the observations made by the reviewers.
Motivation:
One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text.
Motivation:
Overall, review comments were constructive, and the handling of our manuscript was excellent. However, I think it would be great if the entire review timeline could be shortened.
Motivation:
This was my first experience with Optics Letters and I have nothing but good things to say. The peer review had quick turnaround, the reviewer's comments and questions were critical yet entirely fair and through answering them our letter turned out much better than it was at time of submission. Plus, OSA doesn't charge unless you'd like your figures in color print (or would like to give a donation), which is refreshing. For these reasons, I look forward to submitting work to OL again in the future.
Motivation:
The manuscript was assessed by a Senior Editor in consultation with four members of the Board of Reviewing Editors and results were found not to be of enough broad significance for the publication in eLife.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
The review comments are helpful to improve the manuscript. Also, the editor gave us a positive comments. The reviewing process was fair and constructive.
I would like to submit this journal again.
I would like to submit this journal again.
Motivation:
Long review process but high quality of feedback
Motivation:
Good time to first decision. Reasonable reviews.
Motivation:
The initial review time was far longer than what is reported as their average turn-around time on their website. The handling editor did, however, reach out to notify us of the prolonged wait time and made efforts to speed the remainder of the review process. The reviewers comments were helpful and seemed to be from peers who were indeed experts in the field-of-interest.
Motivation:
One reviewer gave me constructive advice, but the other wrote somewhat negative emotional comments on the submitted manuscript. Associate editor stated that he also read the manuscript and that the submitted ms was a recycling paper I had published before. However, I was sure that he did not read the ms nor my published paper before ,because the published year he noted was wrong and the analyses and results differed completely.
Motivation:
They took a long time to answer, but the experience was positive. After accepting the article, it was quickly published (46 days).
Motivation:
I felt it was particularly important to post this review because the only other review on this site claims the process took 6 months between each stage of the process. This was not our experience. The time it took to receive these results was comparable to most other journals in our field, about 2.5 months from submission to initial decision. We received highly thorough and fair feedback from the reviewers and the editors that will be useful in considering how to revise the manuscript for other venues.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A large-scale identification of direct RNA targets and protein partners of RNA editing factor SlORRM4 uncovers its role in tomato fruit ripening" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by 3 editorial board members, who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell and that initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively fast. The editor provided us with a reasonable explanation for the rejection. We got transferred to other journals and could use the feedback from the reviews to improve our paper.
Motivation:
Every stage of the review process was very professional and author-friendly. The perfect rating is to highlight the excellent choice of anonymous referee by the editor. The referee was extremely diligent, as obvious by the in-depth and to the point comments and suggestions. This was by far the best referee report I have ever received in comparison to other journals in the field and it greatly improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
I have no complaints about this Journal.
Motivation:
Their response was apt and very professional
Motivation:
The review process was very fast even under the situation of COVID-19. The comments from an editor and reviewers were reasonable, which contributed to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
great website