Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After 7 months our manuscript had still not been sent to reviewers. It was stuck in an administrative vortex from which we could find no escape, so we withdrew the paper.
On the other hand, colleagues have told me that they have published in the same journal without any problems.
On the other hand, colleagues have told me that they have published in the same journal without any problems.
Motivation:
Smooth handling process. Although rejected, reviewers provided thoughtful ideas and comments to improve the paper.
Motivation:
Our paper was transfered from NEJM to the journal.
Motivation:
Even though the review time is a bit long, the reviewers' comments were exactly to the point and it shows that they have dedicated a significant amount of time on reviewing my paper titled "A Robust Optimisation Framework for SCED Problem in Mixed AC-HVDC Power Systems with Uncertain Wind Power Generation" to IET Renewable Power Generation.
Here is a breakdown of the reviewing process for my paper: Submitted: Oct 2, 2019 IET RPG Asked for major revisions: March 20, 2020 Revised paper submission: April 9, 2020 Revised paper accepted: June 10, 2020. It took 8 months from the first submission to acceptance. Hope this review helps.
Here is a breakdown of the reviewing process for my paper: Submitted: Oct 2, 2019 IET RPG Asked for major revisions: March 20, 2020 Revised paper submission: April 9, 2020 Revised paper accepted: June 10, 2020. It took 8 months from the first submission to acceptance. Hope this review helps.
Motivation:
25 days for a desk rejection! I understand that it may be difficult to give speedy decisions for all authors, but this was unacceptable. A journal that pays its staff should be able to judge the suitability of the article within a few minutes... I asked why it was taking so long, if the article was not in peer review and never received an answer... The handling editor wasn't connected to my field, by a long shot and obviously did not take any real time to read the paper.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
Motivation:
The
Motivation:
Although I think 2 of the reviewers provided moderate comments and one of them believed that the work should be rejected, the other one provided literarily excellent comments and made the paper much better.
Motivation:
The communication from the journal side was very lacking. After the acceptance, the publication process was only set in motion after 6 months. No response was be given to any questions regarding when it would go through the publication handling.
Motivation:
The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall procedure of the review was acceptable and constructive.
Reviewers' comments have contained very professional questions and suggestions.
The overall procedure of the review was acceptable and constructive.
Reviewers' comments have contained very professional questions and suggestions.
Motivation:
The overall process was really quick. First an initial review was performed to assess the suitability of the manuscript for PRX. This was positive, after which there was another round of reviews. However, there it turned out the paper was not "seminal" enough after all. The review reports were OK and the referees knowledgeable, however one of the referees did not read the manuscript carefully in full.
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief adds reviewers until she believes she can justify the rejection that she has already decided on beforehand. The decision to reject was made even though almost all reviewers accepted the changes. I contacted the editor-in-chief twice, once during the review process and once after, but I didn't get a response on either occasion.
Motivation:
The editor gave very constructive feedback to improve the MS and thus have a better fit with the journal, thus implicitly encouraged a resubmission after revising the addressed points.
Motivation:
PAR is one of the most racist journals I have encountered. This is the third time now that I have been desk rejected on very good pieces, simply because I am not American. This is not sour-grapes, as I know that the papers were good because they got accepted at equally prestigious journals elsewhere. PAR are also incredibly slow (13 days for a desk reject) and too arrogant to provide a specific reason for rejection). My advice is that if you are not American then don't bother submitting. I won't be in the future.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 159.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This is a horrible Journal. The editorial board team doesn't seem to be working. We submitted our article for more than 5.5 months without receiving any responses from the Journal. Although we emailed Journal to ask the status of the article 3-4 times, and also contact to the personal email of the editor in chief. We feel that the Journal has no respect for the authors, and if the process takes a long time, they need to respond to our email to let us know. Finally, because we did not receive any feedback from the Journal after many attempts to contact them, we had to decide to withdraw the article to submit to another journal.
Motivation:
The 1st round of the review process was quite okay - we received some constructive feedback and we resubmitted in due time.
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Desk rejection took too long.
Motivation:
Reviewers' comments were mostly very precise and thoughtful which helped to guide the revision process.
Motivation:
Meticulous review process with high quality, constructive review reports. Very clear and encouraging communication with the editor.
Motivation:
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal.
Motivation:
The review process was of very good quality. However, it took a long time after first submission before the manuscript was sent out for review.
Motivation:
Rejected due to limited extent advance. With this reason of rejection, I think the review process could be faster.
Motivation:
The reviewer quality was good. I expect a bit longer time required for the first decision, but it was not long as I expected.
Motivation:
Very thoughtful and thorough reviews, especially concerning our statistical analysis, which was substantially improved by the suggestions.
Motivation:
Editor in Chief is very responsive.