Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It took just over four months for the authors to receive the reviewer comments (first round). This may have been due to the number of reviewers (4). Although, the comments received were more than appropriate and helped to improve the manuscript. I would recommend submitting relevant articles to JSOM.
Motivation:
In addition to the lengthy review process, the post-production time was extremely long. The paper was accepted July 2020, we have been told not to expect proofs of the manuscript until March 2021 at the earliest. After three rounds of external review, there was also another unexpected round of scientific review with the editor.
Motivation:
The desk reject came with a very thoughtful and articulate compliment which indicated that the editor really did read the paper.
Motivation:
Article rejected, but based on three review reports that were received very rapidly. Not the outcome desired, but happy to receive it rapidly. The reviewers seemed rather knowledgeable on the topic, although one reviewer recommended rejection based on an aspect of the article that they admitted was not their expertise. That was disappointing, but the overall decision was based on comments of all three reviewers.
Motivation:
Handled in a professional and quick manner. The reviewers' comment were fair, balanced and useful.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Quick. Very keen on formalities (APA-Style). It seemed to me that both reviewers were not theory- and research-oriented, but rather practitioners who did not value the theoretical focus of the submitted paper.
Motivation:
The response and the attitude of the reviewers' and the editor were positive and constructive. The quality of the manuscript was really enhanced after the revisions.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments and the editorial approach were positive. Constructive comments and suggestions really augmented the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took the journal 4 months to find a handling editor, and then it took another 2 months to find reviewers. The reviews I got back consisted of Reviewer 1 contributing primarily a copy edit job of grammatical and sentence restructuring instead of actual feedback on the content in the MS and Reviewer 2 asking for the inclusion of four references, three of which were from the same working group along with one other request for revision of the title and abstract.
Motivation:
Although the topic was interesting as suggested by the AE, the reviewers were not quite satisfied with the comparisons and the experimental results. Most importantly, I failed to cite any work from IEEE TIE which was emphatically pointed out by the reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewers were very objective in their reviews (major revision) and highlighted the critical issues with the paper. After resubmission, the paper was accepted without any further hurdle. The reviewers were less critical as I had uploaded videos of experimental results.
6.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My initial submission was rejected with option to resubmit, which was always my intention. To me, this seemed a slightly harsh decision as the reviewers were both positive on the concepts and study, but requested major changes (which I was able to implement in good time - 6 weeks, which was less than the review time). Irrespective, the reviewer comments certainly contributed to the betterment of the article, which I thank them for. Following my resubmission of the article, the review process was very smooth, with the only exception of some terminology misunderstandings by one reviewer leading to the same comment appearing in the reviews of the manuscript.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
Motivation:
Overall we had a good experience with Conservation Science and Practice. The first set of comments were much more substantial than we expected for a paper which had already been through quite a lot of informal peer review and revision. There were some excellent comments to improve its structure, but also some comments that we disagreed strongly with (some arguing it was not novel, and others arguing we should use different language which was less clear to us). We responded to all comments, accepting what we agreed with (or were at least OK with), and explaining why we rejected the others and what we think the reviews had missed or misunderstood about our paper. One benefit of this was better explaining what our paper's niche and novel contribution was, although the work it required was disproportionate to the benefit. However, we very much appreciated the fast replies from the staff, and that they were willing to assign a new editor to the major revision we submitted. The new editor also had a great balance of pushing us on some issues, but allowing us to push back as well. For example, s/he wanted us to use more technical and complex language and syntax, when our choice of language was deliberate and reflected a lot of thought and work to make the paper accessible. Overall I would definitely recommend the journal.
14.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal may not be highly regarded in accordance with different journal ranking. And yet, the editorial team had really done a good job giving advice on how the paper should be improved, especially by consolidating the comments from different reviewers. They would highlight the more important and essential comments, so that authors do not have to entertain unreasonable comments.
What they have done is a role model for all other journals editors.
What they have done is a role model for all other journals editors.
Motivation:
I believe that the reviewers’ suggestions were very helpful in improving
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
the manuscript quality, especially in the results section. A better description of results and discussion sections has really improved the overall understanding of the article.
Motivation:
Editor offered some helpful suggestions but overall felt that the article was more appropriate for a field-specific journal.
Motivation:
The time it took to get an answer was to long considering that the journal has a low impact factor. Before submission there was no way to find out how long the process would take. Some of the reviewers comments were offensive.
Motivation:
Disappointing as they encouraged a submission in the first place.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow and frustrating here, and required frequent outreach from us to move things along. It took 18 months after addressing minor revisions for our manuscript to be accepted. To be fair, I know that 9 months after we submitted the revision we got a new editor. But we couldn't understand why it took another 9 months for the new editor to see that we had addressed the minor revisions and it was suitable for publication. When we emailed for updates the reply was always that they could provide no estimates of how much longer it would take. In the end it was accepted which we appreciated. I would not submit here again unless I'd heard they had changed their editorial process.
Motivation:
11 weeks for editorial rejection, but with referral to another journal.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews I received was quite high and they generally made the manuscript better. However, authors should beware that the journal is experiencing a lot of delays and should expect each step to take longer than the timelines they advertise on their website.
Motivation:
Professional handling, but a bit slow. This is understandable though given covid related issues.
Motivation:
Because we receive more than 18,000 submissions every year, incoming manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by a member of the Editorial Board, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to determine whether the potential novelty, impact, and relevance in the broad scientific community merit further detailed technical review. In your case, our assessment is that your manuscript does not meet one or more of the principal aims of our journal and on this basis we expect that the likelihood that detailed review will lead to publication is low.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.
This decision is necessarily subjective and does not reflect an evaluation of the technical quality of your work or of its appropriateness for a more specialized audience; accordingly, we wish you success in finding a more suitable venue for publication soon.