Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
33.4 weeks
49.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I received a swift and polite email containing a rejection pointing to the large volume of submissions to the journal. The editor also made a suggestion for an alternative jounal that might be a better fit.
9.6 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Unless you are a 'big shot' group leader, don't bother submitting here. We presented novel and multidisciplinary work on a high-impact topic with very in-depth content. The paper was not assigned to the editor of our choice who we selected based on previous experience of handling manuscripts in the field. Instead, the paper was assigned to new editor with very poor scientific background and marginaly relevant expertise so it seemed from the get-go that our paper is going to serve as his training material rather. The paper was returned in a week without anything but a form letter and recommendation to resubmit to Science Advances for which we had stated clearly that we had no interest in. So the whole process seemed pre-set to forward high-quality work to boost the impact of their mediocre daughter journal rather than give us a chance to an objective peer review. Multiple inquiries to the editor about more specific feedback were stonewalled and in 6 exchanged e-mails there was not a single indication that the editor had even read the manuscript. Given that the submission had extensive supporting data on top of their typical format, I doubt that that was done as the actual time of 'under editorial consideration' status was actually extremely brief.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The editor was quick to find reviewers with expertise in my field. The reviewers were overall professional and actually fair with their review. Although they recommended rejection on methodological grounds, their feedback improved my manuscript.
3.9 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The direct rejection was quite fast (3 days) but I wonder if the EB really paid attention to my manuscript in such a short period of time especially since I submitted a Friday afternoon and got the rejection email the next Monday early in the morning.
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Timely forwarding of reviewer comments much appreciated, even if outcome was disappointing.
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: This work was initially submitted to JACS and then to Chem Sci. In both cases, it was subjected to desk rejection. In the former, with a poor assessment by the Associate Editor and in the latter, the academic Editor did not bother to respond to a rebuttal. By contrast, Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis gave the work a fair assessment. The review process was robust, it was initially assessed by 4 reviewers (3 recommended minor revision and 1 recommended major revision). Due to the time needed for the revisions, the manuscript was withdrawn, revised, and resubmitted. A single review of the revised version was received and the work was published smoothly. As we suspected this work seems to have garnered quite a bit of attention, landing it in the top 10% of most downloaded articles in the Jan 2018-Dec 2019 time range. Overall, a reasonably satisfying experience. The one matter the Editors may wish to consider is the onerous job of formatting the manuscript in a template. I think they should request this once the manuscript is accepted (this becomes a major time consumption if the manuscript faces rejection from another venue as was the case here).
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process
7.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: This manuscript was reviewed by three referees, all of whom were positive and provided constructive criticism. Both rounds may have taken a little longer time than normal, but coincided with the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: They have been quick, very polite, clear in explaining the process and the decision. Reports were useful (2 out of 4).
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected with a comment from an editor, "There is no novelty".
Immediately accepted after 7.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The report I received was very positive and technical and the review process take a good time.
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reivewer pointed out some minor problems in the manuscript, which were extremely easy to fix and I did it in a few hours. Although the report was overall very good, the recommendation to rejection was too strong basead on the comments I received from the reviewer.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The current work seems to fall somewhat short of the broad advance beyond the published literature to be a strong candidate for the journal.
30.4 weeks
33.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.4 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
4.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast, professional, and the editor guided us of what experiments were the most important to be addressed by the reviewers. I reached out couple of time to the journal and the response was quick and very helpful. I seriously think it is one of my best experience dealing with a journal with a research manuscript.
2.6 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: -Fast turnaround for every step, from submission to publication
-Exigent editorial and publishing norms
-How every scientific journal should be
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: There was a lot of formatting that was done but little that had to do with the content.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Not interesting enough.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor sent a mocky review stating that the paper does not deals with managements and should be submitted to an economics journal. Obviously, they did not read the paper. There are still authors publishing some five papers per year which indicates this journal is not fair in reviewing.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Immediately accepted after 2.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: I received a very positive, good and timely report.
19.6 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.1 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers sent positive reviews and suggestions for minor revisions, editor allowed some discretion with these revisions, we added some citations and added text to the discussion. Almost immediately afterwards, the editor recommended the manuscript be accepted without sending it back out into review.
5.9 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Very fast handling and outstanding managing editor, quality of reviews a bit meh.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
6.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: While it took a rather long time for the first decision this appears to be due to the review of the first referee. This reviewer decided that this paper was too similar to some of our previous work and therefore did not merit publication in this journal. Although the topics were similar, the work and subsequent results were markedly different and this was agreed by both reviewer 2 and reviewer 3 who was brought in to decide on the manuscript. Some of reviewer 1's comments regarding the format of the article and figures indicated a lack of knowledge regarding the structure required for submission to this journal
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer made a great review job, calling my attention to some wrong or weak points in my work. I do not evaluate the process as 5 because the points that the reviewer called my attention were moderately easy to ammend and I belive that it was case of major revision, but not rejection. A point supporting my view is that after some time I corrected my manuscript, submitted it again to the same journal and I wrote a cover letter saying that the paper had already been submitted there, I corrected it and I listed all changes I had made in the work. Then it was accepted by the same editor who had rejected it.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
1
Drawn back
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: Although the review process was rather quick (it took only a month to receive feedback), it seems that I only got comments from one reviewer. The comments were shallow and not very precise.