Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The article was considered too narrow.
Motivation:
Rejection in 1 hour because the editor didn't like the abstract structure.
Motivation:
The reviewers and editors highlighted several problems which we had not taken into account but were very valid, which hopefully when addressed will result in an improved manuscript.
Motivation:
The revised manuscript was rejected based on priority and a perceived lack of novelty. The one review of the revised manuscript, which contained several errors in two short paragraphs, concluded that the paper was "in fact very solid", but lacked novelty. No such concerns were expressed in the original two reviews or by the editor at the time of inviting resubmission. The reason for rejection was thus unrelated to the revisions made, and it seems this decision could have been rendered at the time of reviewing the initial submission rather than wasting our time by encouraging resubmission.
Motivation:
Rejected by the editor within one business day. The editor did give detailed reasons, although you might not agree with them. This journal will only send 8.2% of submitted paper for external review (according to their twitter post), so they do turn down most of the submitted papers. Considering the editors’ workload, I won’t be surprised to see my submission got turned down without, in my opinion, fully evaluated.
Motivation:
The first review round took relatively long, likely as the editor was waiting for a third reviewer. The revise and resubmit came the day I wrote the editor to inquire regarding the expected timeline of the reviews. I really appreciated the interactive forum, as it allowed for more communication with the reviewers. After the first reviews the process was quick and smooth.
Motivation:
Review process was fairly quick and the reviews were excellent quality.
6.4 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Substantial delays from acceptance to publication due to COVID-19 and because this was a special issue submission.
Motivation:
Rejected in 1 week after urging
Motivation:
Introduction, literature, and theoretical contributions are insufficient.
Motivation:
The review happened very quickly to the credit of the journal. Only one of the two reviewers seemed competent to review the manuscript and provided helpful comments, and the other extremely out of date with the field and techniques. There were no comments from the editor, but simply a copy/paste of the comments from the reviewers, which is sloppy and lazy for a journal supposed of this caliber. For a journal that charges a submission fee that is unacceptable. The manuscript was rejected despite having easily addressable comments. I would not consider submitting to this journal in the future.
Motivation:
The 'initial assesment' took 50 days!
After a long period into submission with no status change, we were curious to ask the journal about our paper. The editor of the journal did not reply to our update request. Days later we again asked, this time the staff. They wrote us that "... editor is currently still working to secure peer reviewers ...".
Then another week after that Email from the staff we received a decision letter that "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review" which is actually against the intermediate Email we got!
Beside the lack of information and communication which were confusing, the 50 days of Editor handling is really too long for cutting-edge science. A good work can be easily scoped in such long period.
After a long period into submission with no status change, we were curious to ask the journal about our paper. The editor of the journal did not reply to our update request. Days later we again asked, this time the staff. They wrote us that "... editor is currently still working to secure peer reviewers ...".
Then another week after that Email from the staff we received a decision letter that "Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during our initial assessment, we have decided not to send your paper for further review" which is actually against the intermediate Email we got!
Beside the lack of information and communication which were confusing, the 50 days of Editor handling is really too long for cutting-edge science. A good work can be easily scoped in such long period.
Motivation:
Although the comments were very precise, we had the impression that the referees did their best to improve the paper which was highly appreciated. The editorial care for the text after acceptance was also of a high level, something that you do not come across that often anymore.
Motivation:
The whole process was very efficient. The review suggestions were committed to improving the level of manuscript. Even if the manuscript had not been accepted, the process would have been valid.
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was done very swiftly by the editor, we encountered however a reviewer who had very particular and advanced ideas on how to estimate models, whereas our paper was in line with the econometric methodology used by everyone else in the field and it took quite some persuasion and time to convince this reviewer.
Motivation:
The "immediate reject" decision came after 2 month and the reason given was rejection was wrong (did not reflect the content of the paper). An appeal was sent because of the wrong justification given and the undue delay of the first decision. After 10 days neither has the receipt of the appeal been confirmed, nor did I get an answer.
Motivation:
The rejection was based on a single review by a reviewer who had never published on the topic of the paper and consequently ignored the main part of the paper. The editor claimed to have read the paper but did not show any sign of knowing what was in the paper. The editor should have awaited further reviews from more knowledgeable reviewers, of whom I suggested six, before reaching a decision.
Motivation:
rejected due to large number of manuscipts received. however as the decision came out without delay, I would appreciate the editorial efforts.
Motivation:
Reviewer were constructive. Editor suggested to add recent papers from the journal.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to eLife via bioRxiv and was sent out to review after 6 days. The reviews were in after 3 weeks and they gave us an unlimited deadline to revise the manuscript due to COVID-19. Once our revised manuscript was submitted, the manuscript is passed onto to at least the reviewing editor rather than all the reviewers (I think) and the paper was accepted after a few days. Since we selected the "publish on accept" option, our paper was online later that day. We will definitely consider eLife again.
Motivation:
gave the option for transfer the paper to another
Motivation:
Positive, constructive reviews. However, after minor revisions you would expect to get the final approval a bit quicker.