Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was incredibly slow. Three months after we submitted we asked the editor for an update, and it took four more months to get an extremely short 'minor revisions' review (it was so short and trivial they could have just accepted it conditional on us making a few word changes). Then despite multiple follow-ups from us, it took a year and a half after submitting the minor revisions for it to be accepted. They mentioned the journal was going through transitions, but since the revisions were trivial (not even needing the reviewer to look at them again) we didn't understand the delay.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Both the reviewers said the paper has limited novelty without going into the technicality of the paper. I'm totally unsatisfied with the comments
Motivation:
No reviews from any reviewer were received. In the comment section, only "Minor Contribution" words were mentioned.
Motivation:
Very smooth and prompt review process. Reviewers were thorough and seemed attentive to the details and message conveyed to the readers. The last round of reviews took a day to be addressed because I made a single word change that may or may not have been considered important. As an author, I feel like that unnecessarily delayed the process for two weeks. Small complaint, but should be noted.
Motivation:
Overall experience was great. All the review process was fair, and smooth.
Motivation:
The manuscript engages reviewers who are not remotely associated with the field or the specialization, which makes it impossible to address the reviews. We withdrew our manuscript as the questions from the editor and reviewers were complete waste of our time. The journal does not reply to questions. I would strongly advise against submitting to BMC ID.
Motivation:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by Editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling" the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
Motivation:
Insufficient editorial supervision and management of the revision process. The 1st review was useful, however, the manuscript need not have gone back to reviewers the 2nd time (and clearly not the 3rd). Overall a long review process, due to poor editorial handling.
Motivation:
minor comments from the reviewer to add some precision on experimental devices.
Motivation:
the reviewers complains about the length of the article. No precise comments on the content.
Motivation:
The first reviewers comments was clear and understandable. However, the second reviewers comments does not relate to my paper at all. As my paper used secondary data, while all his comments related to primary data. Reviewers 2 has not bothered to read the paper and just copy-paste a comment from somewhere, which does not related to the paper at all. Overall poor job by the editor, who should at least review the paper to see whether comments are on merit or not
Motivation:
The overall process was reasonable and took less than a month to get a response from reviewers. After minor revision submission, the journal took 10 days for final decision of acceptance. Overall very satisfied.
Motivation:
Submitted the MS right before winter break. MS was sent out for review shortly after the new year. As they claimed, it took two weeks for the reviews to come back. Reviews were overall positive about our study. The paper was accepted with minor revisions. Overall, the review process was very smooth and quality of comments were high.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient, two reviewer seemed to be quite familiar with the presented topic, the proposed comments were insightful and indeed improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
"Specifically, there was considerable interest in the topic of your paper. The modeling appears to be carefully done ... The manuscript is written well. That said, the findings are not particularly unexpected, so do not provide especially new insights."
Selecting papers not based on the quality of the science but on how surprising findings are is a sure way to exacerbate our reproducibility crisis!
Selecting papers not based on the quality of the science but on how surprising findings are is a sure way to exacerbate our reproducibility crisis!
Motivation:
editorial process and review process are very quick
Motivation:
Two of the initial reviews were excellent; the third was very cursory/generic. First round of reviews were extremely slow (~7 months) and I had to email to push things forward. The editor was clear, decisive, and fast after the initial slowness.
Motivation:
1st stage: I had waited 18 days for the editor to inform the external formal review.
2nd stage: Then after about 20 days, I received the decision letter of rejection and comments from two reviewers. The reviewers suggested the topic was not interesting enough and some other problems (though I think these were not).
I hope next time my work can get a higher recommendation.
2nd stage: Then after about 20 days, I received the decision letter of rejection and comments from two reviewers. The reviewers suggested the topic was not interesting enough and some other problems (though I think these were not).
I hope next time my work can get a higher recommendation.
Motivation:
The length of the review process was painfully slow. In the second round of reviews, I only received a review from one of the two reviewers and the entire review was 3 sentences long and one of the sentences complimented our improvements from the first round of edits. We were able to address these comments quickly, and it took another five months almost before the manuscript was accepted after these minor edits.
Motivation:
First review process a bit long, then paper was handled rapidly. Good overall comments and rapid publication online after acceptance.