Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
First, it took a very long period of reviewing time. Though I contacted the editorial office a couple of times, I have never spoken with the editor who was working on my manuscript. Their managing editors kept informing me that they were waiting for the comments from the third reviewer, who didn't exist based on the reviewers' comment report. One of the two reviewers was very positive and discussing constructively, which I really appreciated. The second, however, commented so briefly and not to the point at all as if he/she didn't read the text. The editorial decision was, unfortunately, made based on the second reviewer's comment.
Motivation:
suggested a transfer to scientific reports
Motivation:
Although nobody likes having their manuscript sent back without review, I must highlight that the editor was polite and constructive at all times. He was explicit in that he believed my paper was of value, however, they did not have journal space. They offered to transfer it to a sister journal. The whole process took two days.
Motivation:
professional handling of paper. After the first round, the two initial reviewers were satisfied with the revised manuscript, but the editor nevertheless invited a third reviewer leading to more (major) revisions. This felt a bit unfair but in the end probably led to a better paper.
Motivation:
I am happy with the review process of the journal.
Motivation:
All the process was fast with positive criticism from the reviewers. Good experience, in a high quality journal in the field of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers had great insights into the study and provided constructive comments to help craft the manuscript that will benefit the audience. Also, the timeframe for the manuscript revision is sufficient (90 days for major revision and 30 days for minor revision) to reorganize the manuscript in a good shape. I strongly recommend those who are interested in qualitative research to submit their work in this journal.
4.9 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The technical side of the review process was excellent - clear communication & fast responses. Deadlines for resubmitting the manuscript were very short (one week, if I remember correctly).
The quality of the reviews was very disappointing. The first reviewer wrote just a few sentences, full of typos and almost exclusively related to two specific aspects of the paper (nevertheless those comments were helpful). The second reviewer just questioned the whole paper without suggesting any changes. No comments regarded the method section or the main theme. Reviewers did not seem to be familiar with the methods used.
The quality of the reviews was very disappointing. The first reviewer wrote just a few sentences, full of typos and almost exclusively related to two specific aspects of the paper (nevertheless those comments were helpful). The second reviewer just questioned the whole paper without suggesting any changes. No comments regarded the method section or the main theme. Reviewers did not seem to be familiar with the methods used.
Motivation:
Handling was quick. I received four reviews with the decision to reject the manuscript. Two reviews were very positive. The third review seemed neutral, but in conclusion, the reviewer suggested do not publish our work. The fourth review was overly destructive. The reviewer was rather out of the field. His / her report was simply wrong and ignorant.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "XXX" to Science. Thank you for your patience—this is an incredibly busy and difficult time for us, both professionally and personally. After evaluation and discussion between the relevant editors, we have ultimately decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The consensus view is that the paper will be of great interest to those in this field, but it is not one of our most competitive submissions.
We receive over 10,000 papers per year, and therefore only send those papers most likely to be published in Science for in-depth review. We select papers on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not at all a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our time and space limitations.
During submission, you requested transfer to Science Advances should Science decide not to proceed with your manuscript. We are pleased that you are choosing to transfer to our high-level, interdisciplinary, open access journal. Please use the link below to confirm the transfer. Transfer will not initiate unless you click this link and, if you choose not to, you are free to submit elsewhere.
We receive over 10,000 papers per year, and therefore only send those papers most likely to be published in Science for in-depth review. We select papers on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not at all a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our time and space limitations.
During submission, you requested transfer to Science Advances should Science decide not to proceed with your manuscript. We are pleased that you are choosing to transfer to our high-level, interdisciplinary, open access journal. Please use the link below to confirm the transfer. Transfer will not initiate unless you click this link and, if you choose not to, you are free to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience with this journal and had we not used the entire two months we were given to address the reviewers' comments, the manuscript could have been accepted even faster.
Motivation:
The journal is fast, as usual.
I don't know why it sent out to 4 reviewers. Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. The reviewer even said "There are many other technical details that are unclear and inconsistencies..." without mentioning anything specific. This reviewer also rated the novelty, broad interest, and presentation to the lowest possible, quite different from all other reviewers who rated as top 5% or 15%.
We decided to repeal, and gave a very detailed response. However, it was quickly rejected, without mentioning anything specific in the decision letter. "The editors have read and discussed your manuscript, comments, referee reports, and related work. I am afraid that we ultimately find that this manuscript does not reach the increasingly high thresholds that we have had to set at ACS Nano. " I guess this is a templated response.
I guess this is a bad luck. I had previously good experience with this journal, and had a few publications.
I don't know why it sent out to 4 reviewers. Anyway, 2 recommended minor revision, 1 recommended major revision with actually 2 minor questions, while 1 recommended rejection. The one recommended rejection cited that the work is similar to what has been published, however, it was clearly different material, and there is extensive discussion on the performance and fabrication. The reviewer even said "There are many other technical details that are unclear and inconsistencies..." without mentioning anything specific. This reviewer also rated the novelty, broad interest, and presentation to the lowest possible, quite different from all other reviewers who rated as top 5% or 15%.
We decided to repeal, and gave a very detailed response. However, it was quickly rejected, without mentioning anything specific in the decision letter. "The editors have read and discussed your manuscript, comments, referee reports, and related work. I am afraid that we ultimately find that this manuscript does not reach the increasingly high thresholds that we have had to set at ACS Nano. " I guess this is a templated response.
I guess this is a bad luck. I had previously good experience with this journal, and had a few publications.
Motivation:
It took so much time before receiving the first decision. The status of the article is not available for the authors. This is so stressful. Then, I asked the status several times. The answers from the office were not so slow as the processing for review.
Motivation:
Reviewers comments recieved within ~ 6 weeks. Very kind reviewers comments with only slight editorial changes. However, took a while to process slight editorial changes, edits to proofs and open access. There is no way to check if your paper has made it passed the editorial stage prior to reviewers comments.
Motivation:
Although the process took more time than I expected, I received two very positive reports, with minor suggestions. They were very technical and precise. It was clear that both reviewers were of high caliber and I am not only very happy with the overall process, but also very confidend after reading the reports and the observations made by the reviewers.
Motivation:
One reviewer was very thorough and caught some small inconsistencies and even requested some new material (a little bit tangential to the work) to be added. But, we considered his comments very appropriate and definitely contributed to the final paper. The second reviewer made a very superficial reading of the text, mostly commenting on the aesthetics of the text.
Motivation:
Overall, review comments were constructive, and the handling of our manuscript was excellent. However, I think it would be great if the entire review timeline could be shortened.