Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
"it would not be competitive in the review process "
Motivation:
Overall, I found the Science Advances submission and review process pretty decent. Not the fastest turnaround, and the coauthor permission forms required at the revision stage are cumbersome. However the journal admins were very responsive and helpful when reaching out.
Motivation:
The desk-research came in very quickly, which is very useful, since we could submit the paper elsewhere. However, we felt that the standard/automatic letter that we received informing about the rejection could have been more personalised and explain why the paper was not deemed suitable for this journal.
Motivation:
The editor was particular capable of finding suitable reviewers for our paper within a matter of days. All reviewers provided relevant and valuable comments, and our paper clearly was strengthened in light of those comments. Hat off to the editor of LID, who is very skilled of getting things move along quickly and smoothly.
Motivation:
The review process was generally well handled although considerably tedious due to the constant requirement to make very small changes to the manuscript to satisfy one reviewer. The editor and two other reviewers clearly found the manuscript of interest and the editor was gracious in allowing us to continue to submit and to ensure the concerns of the one outstanding reviewer were met. We were very pleased to be allowed to continue through the review process by a supportive editor. We were less happy to have a~1 month review process for one resubmission which contained only ~200 addtional words compared with the previous submission and an additional supplementary figure. In that same time I reviewed two manuscripts for other journals, and I know that PNAS has strict time limits on reviews. This was extremely frustrating.
Motivation:
It took 2 months before the manuscript went into review, probably because it is relatively difficult to find a suitable reviewer given the topic of our paper. After that, it took 1 month before the review was completed and comments were sent to us. Overall, the reviews were constructive and the editorial team was professional and efficient. One reviewer was particularly helpful in giving critical yet valuable comments which turned out to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Will definitely submit future work to JPA again.
Motivation:
The reviews came after 6 months of wait and several emails of reminders sent to the editor.
Motivation:
A good review process
Motivation:
Fast process with good reviews, even if the article was rejected.
Motivation:
The editor was quick to judge, read and evaluate the content, and the paper was made better by the referee and editor's suggestions.
Motivation:
They claimed they only commission short articles, rather than accept unsolicited submissions. Despite the danger of cronyism and nepotism this creates, it did not say this as far as we could tell on the author instructions. They have quite a cavalier attitude to the time of others. No other reasons for given for rejecting the paper without it going to review.
Motivation:
Submission is a pain, but then it acts as a filter against submissions that are not serious. The manuscript was handled in an efficient manner, but in the end the reviewers and editor suggested a field journal as the topic was not of sufficiently broad interest. Fair enough.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 82.1 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I submitted with other colleagues my manuscript on December 17th, 2020. Its status on ScholarOne remained "awaiting reviewer selection" all the time, meaning that reviewers have not been even selected. I wrote several times to the Editor asking for updates, without receiving any reply.
In the end, I wrote to the editorial office, who wrote to the editor. The editor replied, as an excuse, that it was difficult fo find reviewers cause of Covid-19, without mentioning why she did not reply to my several e-mails.
In the end, we retracted the article because we do not think it is a professional behavior in dealing with a manuscript's submission.
In the end, I wrote to the editorial office, who wrote to the editor. The editor replied, as an excuse, that it was difficult fo find reviewers cause of Covid-19, without mentioning why she did not reply to my several e-mails.
In the end, we retracted the article because we do not think it is a professional behavior in dealing with a manuscript's submission.
Motivation:
Detailed and highly demanding comments from reviewers.