Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor was quick to find reviewers with expertise in my field. The reviewers were overall professional and actually fair with their review. Although they recommended rejection on methodological grounds, their feedback improved my manuscript.
Motivation:
The direct rejection was quite fast (3 days) but I wonder if the EB really paid attention to my manuscript in such a short period of time especially since I submitted a Friday afternoon and got the rejection email the next Monday early in the morning.
Motivation:
Timely forwarding of reviewer comments much appreciated, even if outcome was disappointing.
Motivation:
This work was initially submitted to JACS and then to Chem Sci. In both cases, it was subjected to desk rejection. In the former, with a poor assessment by the Associate Editor and in the latter, the academic Editor did not bother to respond to a rebuttal. By contrast, Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis gave the work a fair assessment. The review process was robust, it was initially assessed by 4 reviewers (3 recommended minor revision and 1 recommended major revision). Due to the time needed for the revisions, the manuscript was withdrawn, revised, and resubmitted. A single review of the revised version was received and the work was published smoothly. As we suspected this work seems to have garnered quite a bit of attention, landing it in the top 10% of most downloaded articles in the Jan 2018-Dec 2019 time range. Overall, a reasonably satisfying experience. The one matter the Editors may wish to consider is the onerous job of formatting the manuscript in a template. I think they should request this once the manuscript is accepted (this becomes a major time consumption if the manuscript faces rejection from another venue as was the case here).
Motivation:
manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process
Motivation:
This manuscript was reviewed by three referees, all of whom were positive and provided constructive criticism. Both rounds may have taken a little longer time than normal, but coincided with the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Motivation:
They have been quick, very polite, clear in explaining the process and the decision. Reports were useful (2 out of 4).
Motivation:
The paper was rejected with a comment from an editor, "There is no novelty".
Motivation:
The report I received was very positive and technical and the review process take a good time.
Motivation:
The reivewer pointed out some minor problems in the manuscript, which were extremely easy to fix and I did it in a few hours. Although the report was overall very good, the recommendation to rejection was too strong basead on the comments I received from the reviewer.
Motivation:
The current work seems to fall somewhat short of the broad advance beyond the published literature to be a strong candidate for the journal.
Motivation:
The review process was fast, professional, and the editor guided us of what experiments were the most important to be addressed by the reviewers. I reached out couple of time to the journal and the response was quick and very helpful. I seriously think it is one of my best experience dealing with a journal with a research manuscript.
Motivation:
-Fast turnaround for every step, from submission to publication
-Exigent editorial and publishing norms
-How every scientific journal should be
-Exigent editorial and publishing norms
-How every scientific journal should be
Motivation:
There was a lot of formatting that was done but little that had to do with the content.
Motivation:
Not interesting enough.
Motivation:
The editor sent a mocky review stating that the paper does not deals with managements and should be submitted to an economics journal. Obviously, they did not read the paper. There are still authors publishing some five papers per year which indicates this journal is not fair in reviewing.
Motivation:
I received a very positive, good and timely report.
Motivation:
Reviewers sent positive reviews and suggestions for minor revisions, editor allowed some discretion with these revisions, we added some citations and added text to the discussion. Almost immediately afterwards, the editor recommended the manuscript be accepted without sending it back out into review.
Motivation:
Very fast handling and outstanding managing editor, quality of reviews a bit meh.
Motivation:
While it took a rather long time for the first decision this appears to be due to the review of the first referee. This reviewer decided that this paper was too similar to some of our previous work and therefore did not merit publication in this journal. Although the topics were similar, the work and subsequent results were markedly different and this was agreed by both reviewer 2 and reviewer 3 who was brought in to decide on the manuscript. Some of reviewer 1's comments regarding the format of the article and figures indicated a lack of knowledge regarding the structure required for submission to this journal
Motivation:
The reviewer made a great review job, calling my attention to some wrong or weak points in my work. I do not evaluate the process as 5 because the points that the reviewer called my attention were moderately easy to ammend and I belive that it was case of major revision, but not rejection. A point supporting my view is that after some time I corrected my manuscript, submitted it again to the same journal and I wrote a cover letter saying that the paper had already been submitted there, I corrected it and I listed all changes I had made in the work. Then it was accepted by the same editor who had rejected it.
Motivation:
Although the review process was rather quick (it took only a month to receive feedback), it seems that I only got comments from one reviewer. The comments were shallow and not very precise.
Motivation:
I found reviewers' comments logical to be addressed before publishing it to ACS Chemistry of Materials.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected even though the comments by the reviewers could have been addressed. This has happened to many submissions to this journal. However, as I acted as a reviewer, I noticed that revise decision was made even in the presence of critical reports.
Motivation:
My short paper was quickly reviewed and accepted. The reports were reasonable.
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously written by a same person and contained shallow notes like insufficient conclusions/literature review/figure quality. Some more specific comments were not relevant at all. By the way, reviews were written in awkward English. The reviews were just several sentences long. In general, I consider this as a scam which repeated during several submissions.