Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled professionally and the process was smooth. I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers; I sensed that they were highly competent reviewers. One of the reviewers gave very comprehensive feedback and great ideas for a follow-up paper. I would consider submitting a paper to this journal again.
Motivation:
The editorial efforts from this journal is excellently awsome. whatever the decisions, we know it in the first day itself.
Motivation:
Although the outcome that I received was a 'rejection', this journal has smooth submission and handling processes, and the quality of the reviewing was excellent.
Motivation:
Two different reviewers made appropiate comments of our manuscript. Their positive comments were easy to answer and it would have been easy to improve the manuscript following their comments.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
Motivation:
Over three cycles of review, with two reviews each time, there were two reviewers who liked the paper and were satisfied with the manuscript, and one who would not be satisfied (who was not a reviewer until round 2). The authors were disappointed that this paper went from a minor revision (at review #1) to a rejection (at review #3), but feel the editor may have been in a bind due to that reviewer. With an average of 4 months per review, this process delayed the publication of this paper by a year and a half. Trying not to let the outcome skew our impressions of the review process, we do wish (1) a new reviewer hadn't been brought in during round 2, (2) the new reviewer's opinions hadn't been weighted above the other two, (3) the process hadn't taken so long, (4) we hadn't been asked to complete a revision after review #2, if the reviewer was never going to be satisified with our methods.
Motivation:
The desk rejection took over 1 week. In my experience this is necessarily long. Their reasoning was fine, but I had assumed it had gone to reviewers when I hadn't heard anything form them in a week.
Motivation:
The review duration was unnecessarily long.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 191.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I think six months is time enough to receive a first decision from the journal, even more considering that the paper was under review since the end of January.
Motivation:
The speed of the review process was convincible and we received good comments from two reviewers that improved parts of our discussion. From the comments we received, we found that the reviewers had good knowledge on the matter discussed in the paper.
Motivation:
Though it took longer than usual due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the editorial process was excellent. It was fair and honest, and the reviewer reports were of high quality. I usually publish in the top journals in my field, but this journal has impressed me. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
I did not expect that the reputable journal allows such careless and superficial reviews. As far as I understand, the Referee did not recommend the manuscript for a full review and further consideration because "the paper revisits the well-studied areas ..." and "there is nothing essentially new here ...". He/she didn't even try to understand the essence of our approach.
Motivation:
Editors should understand their responsibility to go through the reviewer comments and how these are addressed by authors. Proper reasons for rejection should be given e.g. specific comments that remain unaddressed.
Motivation:
This was the best and most thorough review process I have experienced so far. I am thankful to the Editor and reviewers for their excellent comments.
Motivation:
Best Review process and quick as compare to other journals
Motivation:
14 weeks after submission I sent an email to the editor inquiring on the unusual length of the review. Within one hour I received a rejection email. Who knows how long had the editor sat on our reviews, and how they made a haste decision immediately after receiving my message. This did not feel at all like a professional and thorough evaluation of the reviewers' comments, which were easily addressable. Ultimately the paper was published in a journal of higher impact and has been cited >100 times.
Motivation:
This journal is in melt-down. I was written to a few weeks ago to say there had been a huge backlog in dealing with submissions and an 'internal problem'. Now I get a desk reject with no reason provided. Unless you have 8 weeks to waste, I highly recommend that you do NOT submit anything to this journal. Appalling behaviour really.
Motivation:
I have submitted it on 18th June and got the first review on 28th August. The revised manuscript submitted on 29th August and got an acceptance on 9th September. It is a very good Journal for material science researchers.
Motivation:
The editor disappointingly did not understand the work, and insulted us by a comment that he believes the paper is generated by a computer! This work was reviewed internally at our institution by four professors who were all co-authors; all English native speakers! We submitted a complain to the editor in chief and we did not receive ANY sort of response! Very bad experience with this journal, its editor, and editor in chief. Stay away from this journal.
Motivation:
Incredibly fast process all around. I've never had a paper go through the process so quickly at every stage. That being said, the review reports weren't super detailed compared to other journals, but we went through an entire round of reviews and had the paper accepted in the same amount of time it sometimes takes for other journals to even send out to reviewers the first time.
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 seems to not have been aware of the journal's article structure (introduction, results, discussion, methods), and commented to have missed a section that was included with the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere.
the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format.
Reviewer 2 had many good suggestions that will strengthen the manuscript when submitted elsewere.
the manuscript was transferred from NHB, but the transfer was not as smooth as promised, with many changes necessary to fit the NHB manuscript to the SR format.
Motivation:
After 20 months my papers were accepted. 4 times revised manuscripts, the first is reject and resubmit, the second is major revised, third is minor revised, and the fourth was accepted. Thanks two reviewers and the editor of the journal are polite with authors.
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were rather general and mostly asked for a more comprehensive discussion of the contribution; however, the editors rejected