Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Motivation:
Overall, this was a good experience. It was a little slower response time than I would have liked but otherwise the reviewers were fair and process went well.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, one of the reviewers was clearly biased, tried to delay the manuscript as much as possible, and reduce its impact. Additionally, the duration from acceptance to publication was very long (45 days) due to ongoing requests by the editorial staff (to replace individual words and perform other minor changes).
Motivation:
I received three comments and the editor’s rejection decision. The comments of the two reviews are very positive. One is direct publishing. The third comment suggested, "do not publish". The third reviewer's report was wrong and ignorant, but the editor accepted his/her suggestion despite my appeal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted during the COVID pandemic but was still processed and returned relatively quickly. Although the editor and reviewers appeared to see promise in the manuscript, it was rejected with the editor suggesting that we rewrite the paper and resubmit it to the journal as a new submission. It was not clear why we were not granted an option to revise and resubmit.
Motivation:
The manuscript sat with the editor for two months before being sent out for review. Once it was sent out to reviewers the decision was made within a month. Admittedly this was during the COVID pandemic but it was fair longer than the other manuscripts I had sent to other journals at that same time period.
Motivation:
Reviewing Editors comments were mediocre and lack of understanding.
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
Motivation:
No comments
Motivation:
The review process is clear and helpful.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
4.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor was prompt and courteous. The reviewer's comments were accurate and helpful in improving the paper.
Motivation:
The editor suggested an article transfer offer to another Elsevier journal.
Motivation:
The journal managed the submission really well and the reviews came in a timely fashion. Even thought the paper was rejected, the reviewers gave clear reasons why and how the paper could be improved.
Motivation:
Out of three reviewers, one reviewer provided very lengthy and helpful feedback. But it was detailed enough to make up for the other two reviews that did not provide much feedback. Also, the editor was swift in handling the ms and was kind and encouraging.
10.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I have not received suitable reviews in the first round. The second round review was better but there were not many changes for my manuscript in the second round.
Motivation:
The manuscript was thoroughly read and evaluated by the handling editor as well as discussed with additional editors. The work was considered important, however, not of high enough interest for a broader audience. Direct transfer to Nature Communications was proposed.
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were clear and coherent, but somewhat at odds with the journal's statement of scope.
Motivation:
The journal was clear and the reviews were helpful. Even though it took some time, it is quite understandable given the situation (written during the coronavirus pandemic). Editors were quick to respond to any inquiries and once the reviews were available they acted promptly.
Motivation:
Submission for a special issue, smooth.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews, which did improve the manuscript. However the process took a long time, and in later review rounds some of the requests became rather picky.
Motivation:
Efficient process that also improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
Even though they rejected the manuscript, I am happy with their prompt response. It did not waste time.
Motivation:
A ridiculously long initial review step. There seemed to be some back and forth among the editorial staff. Ultimately, it was clear that they lacked basic understanding of the system, even though they've published on it before. It was very frustrating, espicially given the lack of expertise by our handling editor. Ultimately the paper was published in a better journal so it was there loss, besides time.
Motivation:
They had far too many submissions for the special issue we targeted, clearly explained.
Motivation:
Good reviews with fairly quick handling for linguistics. Pragmatic and reasonable editors. All delays were due to me.