Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One of the two review reports received recommended the rejection of the manuscript. This review report was intentionally and unnecessarily long and contained a different point for any small thing that the reviewer deemed imprecise or missing. Most of the comments were not actually relevant to the work and some were clearly in contradiction to the manuscript's contents. Nonetheless, the editor decided to reject the manuscript based on this highly problematic review only.
Motivation:
Long interval from first submission to the decision (>3 months). Associate editor provided a short note stating that reviewer's ratings for the priority of the work in combination with several major issues was the reason for rejection. However, 2 out of the 3 reviewers stated that the work was interesting/novel and the third reviewer did not dispute its merit. Comments were easily addressable and none of them pointed to a major methodological flaw or lack of scientific validity. Overall a disappointing process and outcome.
Motivation:
An absolute waste of time. A very long process that led to nothing but my proposed approach becoming obsolete. One of the reviewers asked to compare my proposed method with a Deep Learning approach, whereas not only that target approach was irrelevant but also I could not have access to the required hardware. Indeed I clarified that one major advantage of the proposed method was its computational simplicity and tested it against some of the state-of-the-art relevant methods. It took the associate editor 10 month to only be able to have one review from one reviewer that asked for additional comparison. But based on that single review my manuscript was rejected. Poor experience.
Motivation:
Two of the reviews were not competent, and the reviewers did not know the literature nor understand what a research note was, or seem to have much understanding of survey research. The third supported publication.
The pool of competent academics and reviewers in Australia in public administration may be shallow so the editors may have been stuck with the poor reviewers, but the editors should have probably discounted the two reviewers. The editorial team is a new one. Mid range journals perhaps need articles that will be cited, if only to increase their impact factors, and perhaps move outside their provincial focus, particularly in regional environments.
The pool of competent academics and reviewers in Australia in public administration may be shallow so the editors may have been stuck with the poor reviewers, but the editors should have probably discounted the two reviewers. The editorial team is a new one. Mid range journals perhaps need articles that will be cited, if only to increase their impact factors, and perhaps move outside their provincial focus, particularly in regional environments.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was productive and up to standard. The second round of reviews was a failure in all respects. Only a single reviewer provided a report and in that report 4 comments were included, three of which had to do with very minor typos/editorial changes. There was a single comment requesting similar changes to what was already done after the first round of reviews. The Associate Editor then took the decision to reject the paper based on this single (not very critical) review.
Motivation:
Reviews were professionally written and constructive. The main issue I faced was significant delays: it took almost 2 months for the editor to send the paper out to reviewers and another 6 months to receive a decision.
Motivation:
3 review reports were received. Major revision for 2, reject for 1. Finally the journal gave a 'revise and resubmission'. So although, the paper was 'rejected', we were encouraged to resubmit, which we ultimately did.
Motivation:
While there was no constructive feedback provided, I'd sooner receive the rejection decision early at editorial level and avoid the possibility of months under peer review before finally reaching a decision.
Motivation:
took too long to get desk rejection. They said it was because they were busy.
Motivation:
quick rejection
Motivation:
2 months for a desk reject is unacceptably long, a career killer for junior scholars.
Motivation:
It was a quick and friendly desk reject.
Motivation:
I sent to Sage Open on 28th January 2024, but it rejected on 31th January, 2024 without any reason. They rejected me so fast
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled in a timely manner and the reviewer quality was good! Comments by the reviewer helped me to further improve my manuscript.
Motivation:
The process was very timely which is a plus. The first reviewer seemed like an expert and offered feedback to improve the paper and resubmit. This feedback was detailed with the inclusion of several previous publication for consideration and guidance on how to improve the paper. The second review seemed to have skimmed the paper and provided feedback that indicated that the paper was not thoroughly read or understood. As such, it led to comments that had no basis and reflects the reviewers lack of knowledge with the subject area.
The editor advised us to resubmit but given the poor quality of the second reviewers comments, we took all of the first reviewers comments under consideration and resubmitted to a different journal.
The editor advised us to resubmit but given the poor quality of the second reviewers comments, we took all of the first reviewers comments under consideration and resubmitted to a different journal.
Motivation:
The reviews were quick, friendly and of high quality. I'm sure I could have addressed them. Pitty the journal directly rejected the paper.
Motivation:
Very friendly and supportive reviewer comments despite the reject, and the editor always kept me in the loop about the review progress. Excellent communication from the journal.
Motivation:
This was a resubmission from a paper that was originally rejected (revise and resubmit). The paper was revised and resubmitted and ultimately accepted.
Motivation:
Handling of the manuscript went smoothly, reviewers provided an insightful, useful review.
Motivation:
It took quite a while to get three very brief reviews with rather generic feedback. I don't envy the editors to make a decision on that basis.
Motivation:
One of the best journals in this field. The process was overall smooth.
Motivation:
The review reports are of good quality overall speaking, and the review process took moderate time length.
Motivation:
The editor handled our manuscript professionally. Comments from the reviewers are very helpful in strengthening the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, I was pleased with the process and outcome. Great and personable editor!
Motivation:
Very fast, fair comments. The editor also provided useful comments on the manuscript, and made a very fast decision.
Motivation:
The editor was professional and the reviewer was shown to extract errors in the manuscript.