Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
Very long for an editorial rejection.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very strict review by the editor who did not see anything interesting in our article.
Motivation:
I received a positive feedback from the editors and I took them into account.
Motivation:
Limited theoretical contributions
Motivation:
One of the review reports was written in poor English and had a lot of linguistic mistakes. The reviewer only commented on the merits of the paper, which did not fit in his opinion with the journal. I only blame the editorial board for sending it out to reviewers despite them arguing the paper was out of the journal's scope.
Motivation:
The reviewers were well informed and gave good and fair feedback which was repairable. Considering the status of the journal they missed sufficient novelty in the results.
Motivation:
1st review were overall good comments
Motivation:
It took >10 months for the first reviewer reports to arrive, which is the longest duration from submission to first reviewer feedback out of >10 journals we recently published in. If the manuscript had been of above average length it might be understandable that the review process takes longer, but it was in fact quite short (5400 words).
2.1 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Thanks the contribution by reviewers and editoral team. I had a positive and pleasure contact and submission.
Motivation:
The reviews we received were very helpful and to the point. We were therefore highly disappointed when the only reply we received upon submitting a revised version - which we thought addressed the concerns raised in the reviews - was an outright rejection without any motivation whatsoever. Even upon inquiring we received no explanation for the rejection from the editor.
Motivation:
Long time for review
Motivation:
In advance, I presented the paper at the EGOS conference, incorporating virtually all feedback on the short paper, the long paper and the presentation (feedback was great and constructive). Then I submitted the article to OS, waited three weeks and received three totally destructive sentences that the paper was poor quality and immature (after someone apparently looked at the paper for probably five minutes), leaving me without any constructive comments or arguments on how to improve the paper.
Motivation:
After spending hours to adapt my manuscript to the format and style of PeerJ Computer Science and submitting it to this journal, an editor decided after only 1 day that it was unsuitable for the journal's topics, rejected the article, and suggested to resubmit somewhere else.
The editor wrote that the article was more adapted for statistics journal than for PeerJ Computer Science.
I totally disagree with his/her decision.
The editor wrote that the article was more adapted for statistics journal than for PeerJ Computer Science.
I totally disagree with his/her decision.
3.3 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal have a rapid peer-review process and friendly submission system. The reviewers proivded pertinent comments to help the authors shape the manuscript in a strong and readable manner. In addition, the communication with the assigned assistant editor was pretty smooth, and she responsed swiftly and fully answered the questions we raised. This is the first time that we submit our research to this journal, and we suggest those who prefer a short period of peer-review process to submit their studies to this journal.
9.6 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Despite some grounded and constructive comments from another reviewer, one reviewer only criticized English language issues. It is a bit harsh but within a reasonable scope.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
Motivation:
Fast
Motivation:
We received two reviewer reports from Molecular Pharmaceutics. The first reviewer advised the editor to accept the manuscripts with minor changes. Reviewer two advised the manuscript should be sent to another journal. The Associate Editor, based on the two reports, decided then to reject the manuscript. However, both reviewers, specially reviewer one, had great comments on our manuscript's contents, which will improve greatly the quality of our work.
Motivation:
The review process was smoother than we expected. The editor was very responsive and professional. The manuscript was very much improved than the initial state, with an increase of 60% figures.
Motivation:
Straightforward rejection: the editor considered our paper out of scope there. Very strict...
Motivation:
An editor stated that "other venues should be considered for this paper"
Motivation:
Fast review process. First review report very short, second very elaborate.
Motivation:
Very smooth process and responsive editorial team, my favorite editorial process so far!