Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very disappointed that a massive RCT with excellent results was declined after only being seen by one reviewer.
Motivation:
Four reviewers provided their comments. All of them valued our work, with three expressing high interest. However, one reviewer suggested that this work would be more suitable for other open access journals, such as IEEE Access or the IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy. Unfortunately, the editor directly rejected the paper in such a divisive condition, which surprised the co-authors.
This journal has new EIC from 2024 summer, so I hope to see some positive changes.
This journal has new EIC from 2024 summer, so I hope to see some positive changes.
Motivation:
rejected by autism ATT
Motivation:
SAGE Open is a journal with no respect for contributors and is slow to respond.
After resubmission, my paper was neglected for one and a half years.
In addition, the peer review is terrible. Reviewer 1 wrote one sentence (this paper has no innovation) as a review.
You should not submit your manuscript to SAGE Open. It is a waste of time.
After resubmission, my paper was neglected for one and a half years.
In addition, the peer review is terrible. Reviewer 1 wrote one sentence (this paper has no innovation) as a review.
You should not submit your manuscript to SAGE Open. It is a waste of time.
Motivation:
My experience with STOTEN was the worst journal interaction I have ever had. We chose STOTENT for several reasons, one being a reputation for fast handling. We submitted our manuscript, which was sent to review within 2 weeks. 4 months later we had heard nothing and status indicated 0 reviews completed. Several email inquiries got us no information. Eventually, after threatening to retract the paper, I was told they would find new reviewers. After 5 months, I inquired again, and was told they were still looking for reviewers. After 6 months I stated I would retract the paper if there was no decision. Finally, they stated after 6 months they had managed to obtain 1 reviewer report. The reviewer report was OK. The reviewer made 3 or 4 arguments/suggestions that I thought were important and very relevant for ensuring the quality of our paper. However, the reviewer made several other comments that made me question whether they had read the paper at all. The reviewer was clearly unfamiliar with the literature/methods related to our manuscript but they seemed to brush that to the side and said we used too many "unfamiliar" indices and that they weren't convinced by all this "new stuff." Overall the review was critical but it wasn't all that negative. However, the editor rejected our paper flat out with no chance for resubmission stating that our manuscript was not of sufficient interest for STOTEN and that it would be better fit for a topic specific journal. So, what aggravates me about this - the editor could have made that decision immediately without any reviews. They waited 6 months to obtain 1 review that said nothing about the novelty or fit of our manuscript for the journal and then decided to reject it on that basis. They literally wasted 6 months of our time. Both the handling editor and associate editor completely ignored us during review and clearly did not do their job. As an editor myself, I was really displeased with the quality of the editors. To state again, I could not be more dissatisfied with my experience here. I will not review for, or submit to, this journal again.
Motivation:
One reviewer was positive on the article, the other reviewer submitted a negative review based on unfounded motivations, such as complaining about the lack of data that were clearly present in the text. The editor decision was completely unjustified: clearly the reviewer did not read the article at all, or had a negative influence on the authors. The editor approved this review and ignored the other, without a reasonable judgment or motivation. Bad editorial experience.
Motivation:
One reviewer reviewed the work very highly (ranked it very high). Second reviewer wanted us to change our entire course of experimentation in a direction we had already shown within the work as unnecessary, and offered some meaningless other suggestions. This reviewer also asked for some results that were in the manuscript. Third reviewer said this is like other work in the literature, apparently without care or regard of what has been achieved. Two of the three reviews were absolutely third rate. But this seemed adequate for the "Editor" to reject. A detailed rebuttal was sent to the "Editor" but it was not considered seriously. Bad experience with this journal (just like with Angewandte Chemie International Edition).
Motivation:
fast and high-quality journal
Motivation:
The review process in Anais's takes so long. Also, contacting the editorial board is very difficult.
Immediately accepted after 8.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
No evidence that this article was actually peer-reviewed. It seems to be just accepted by the editors based on the most superficial of checks.
Motivation:
It's the second time that this happens to my manuscripts. The editor found a convenient way for desk-rejecting manuscripts. He just tells the submitters he was not able to identify reviewers in time, which gives him justification to reject. The editor then makes it sound like he is doing you a favor by "releasing the manuscript so it can be re-submitted to another outlet." I find this editorial behavior worrying and unacceptable. It will discriminate against under-researched topics or new areas outside of the masses of reviewers. This is clearly anti-science.
Motivation:
The paper was a part of our PhD student thesis. It was translated by a professionnal translator and then edited by an Editage editor. Despite a plagiarism check by Editage showing minor similarities, the managing editor wrote that he identified too much similarities.
Therefore, make your best to reformulate similarities even if these are common expressions in your field.
Therefore, make your best to reformulate similarities even if these are common expressions in your field.
Motivation:
Tourism management handles 1800 submissions/ year. The editor thus rejects papers that are not original. Hence, do not send multiple overlaping papers to have the chance to publish on Tourism Management.
Motivation:
Clean desk reject, got one sentence of feedback how we might improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The submission platform is archaic. Rejection aside, the overall process is not modern where things like tracking are available. Its seems completely manual. Wasted two months that could have been submitted elsewhere.
Motivation:
It took the journal more than 3 weeks to conduct the technical check.
Motivation:
After almost 50 days from the date of manuscript submission, the editorial office informed me that my manuscript was rejected, actually without obvious reason, just the repeated common words “Although your manuscript falls within the aim and scope of this journal, it is being declined due to lack of sufficient novelty. We receive a much larger number of papers than we are able to accept”. They did not adequately consider the manuscript as evidenced by the lack of reviewers’ comments and the suggestion of submitting my manuscript to another journal which has a scoop completely different from my manuscript scope. The bad thing is that they kept the manuscript for 50 days for nothing, although they claim the Time to First Decision is 11 days.
Motivation:
"...According to their views, your paper does not contain a sufficiently strong component of new applied physics. We believe your work would receive better visibility in a highly specialty journal in elsewhere."
Motivation:
Faily quick process
Motivation:
After almost 2 months, the Editor of the journal Mario Pianta stated that the work didn´t fit within the scope of the journal and nothing else. Does the editor need almost 2 months for such decision when there are many papers published in the journal dealing with similar topics?.
The editor suggested journal "Italian Economic Journal" (without any impact factor).
The editor suggested journal "Italian Economic Journal" (without any impact factor).
Motivation:
Transfer was offered by Science. After editor declined the invitation, the status remained "under evaluation" for 4 weeks without any update. We sensed a desk rejection here based on the reviews here, but we sent an inquiry email. Two days later, we received a rejection and an automated response email. Just as expected!
Motivation:
The review by the editor was very kind in explaining that the paper was interesting but not a good fit for the journal and to save time was not sent out to reviewers.
Motivation:
Manuscript status was "under review" for 6 weeks, but it was unclear whether this was editorial or peer review. After contacting the publisher for an update, the status changed to "decision in process". After another 6 weeks, a decision was made: "Although your manuscript falls within the aim and scope of this journal, it is being declined due to lack of sufficient novelty. We receive a much larger number of papers than we are able to accept." This message was under "Reviewers' comments" in the letter, but no other comments were provided, so it's still unclear whether this manuscript was peer reviewed or not. It appears to be a desk rejection, but a desk rejection after 3 months seems excessive.
Motivation:
I am greatly disappointed by the very long wait for an initial editorial decision. The only explanation provided was "The insight provided in the paper was felt to be limited". They waited 49 days just to write this for an editorial rejection.
The process I have experienced was completely unprofessional and disrespectful of the work we have put together. We lost many other opportunities as I wanted to publish the outcome of my eLife Ben Barres Spotlight Award in eLife as they encouraged.
The process I have experienced was completely unprofessional and disrespectful of the work we have put together. We lost many other opportunities as I wanted to publish the outcome of my eLife Ben Barres Spotlight Award in eLife as they encouraged.
Motivation:
Fast desk rejection. The editor read the manuscript and gave positive feedback but said it was not well suited for the broad, international readership of MEPS. He also provided other journals that could be submitted.
Motivation:
An Important Experience to Share!
My Paper Formatting Journey: I spent countless hours formatting my paper according to the journal's guidelines for a Special Issue. Despite the paper's alignment with the Special Issue's theme, it was immediately rejected after the deadline due to not being in the required double-column format. This was despite the author guidelines stating that papers should be written in a single-column format.
Journal's Specific Biases: This journal appears to have specific biases towards certain authors and subjects.
Important Tip: Ensure you understand these biases before investing time in submitting to this journal. If any journal asks to get in their format even on the first submission let us be careful
My Paper Formatting Journey: I spent countless hours formatting my paper according to the journal's guidelines for a Special Issue. Despite the paper's alignment with the Special Issue's theme, it was immediately rejected after the deadline due to not being in the required double-column format. This was despite the author guidelines stating that papers should be written in a single-column format.
Journal's Specific Biases: This journal appears to have specific biases towards certain authors and subjects.
Important Tip: Ensure you understand these biases before investing time in submitting to this journal. If any journal asks to get in their format even on the first submission let us be careful
Motivation:
JNeuro is very flexible with the formatting, which makes submission relatively straightforward. They suggested that we try transferring our manuscript to eNeuro, which we did.
Motivation:
Even if the aims and scope of the journal does not mention it, the potential for contribution of meta-analyses is considered quite small regardless of how well done it may or may not be. The results from our meta-analyses are viewed as fairly well-understood findings that could be pointed out briefly as part of a literature review. In brief, meta-analyses are viewed as useless by the editor-in-chief.
Motivation:
Rapid editorial rejection
Motivation:
It took one month to move from "submitted to Journal" to "with Editor" and then two months "With Editor" just to say that the paper was out of scope. Totally unprofessional
Motivation:
The Chief Editor sent a mail saying that the paper I submitted would not be a good fit for the Journal due to the methodology I employed for my study and that it might not be favorably reviewed. They took the time to explain their rationale in a lengthy email, and I appreciated that. They were prompt with their decision (2 days) which helped me submit my manuscript elsewhere without further delays.
Motivation:
One of the worst submissions I've experienced. Four months for nothing
Motivation:
transfer to other ACS sister journals was given
Motivation:
Lengthly process for the first decision considering the short length of an application note.