Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I submit this paper for a special issue. First, the abstract was accepted and we were invited to submit the whole paper. After 3 months received one single comment and the same in the second round of reviews. Finally, in the third round of review, the paper was rejected based on three short comments from one reviewer. The argument of the reviewer was that the case study was not theoretically motivated and the methodology was not novel. Both arguments could have been made one year before during the abstract review. In addition, the reviewer, I think, clearly did not understand the methodology. Editors may ensure that the reviewer will have the knowledge to assess the paper. I won't submit again to this journal, the entire process is unprofessional and with no respect for the time and effort invested.
Motivation:
The editors are really responsible and responsive, giving very insightful comments in a timely manner and helping us improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process was great. The reviewer reports were helpful and the revised manuscript was much improved through their feedback. The initial reviewer reports took some time to be received due to the original handling editor taking a leave (thus, needing a new handling editor), but the process was extremely quick following the assignment of a new editor. Overall, I am pleased with the process.
Motivation:
suggested transfer to Nature Communications
Motivation:
This decision was based upon suitability for publication in Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems and fit. However, they encouraged me to submit to the Journal of Transport Geography, which was not more suitable.
Motivation:
This time the reviews were very professional and helped to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
The journal is very reputed with 7.6 impact factor. If the topic of the journal aligns with your manuscript, they will take it very seriously. Reviewers were very good. They suggested some major changes and it definitely improved my paper a lot. One of the factors slowing down the process in my case was the editorial speed. The manuscript was 'with editor' for more than 2 months in the whole process. Other than this, it was pretty good experience. Would recommend the journal.
Motivation:
Very fast handling and review process. The review was not that tough. The manuscript remained roughly same after the revision.
Motivation:
The handling as well as the reviewer reports were quite ok. However, one has a little bit the impression that is very unlikely that a submission is rejected. This reduces the opinion on the quality of the overall review process.
Motivation:
The journal id very good. Awesome experience in submitting the work.
Motivation:
Fast generic desk-rejection for presubmission inquiry.
Motivation:
Generic desk-rejection.
Motivation:
Generic desk-rejection for presubmission inquiry.
1.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Comments are fast and improved the paper. During the prereview stage, they pay close attention to the format.
Motivation:
The editor asked us to perform a minor revision with ~10 days. We were able to submit within the given time limit. However, the editor still decided to send it for fresh reviews.
Each time the portal reflected that required reviews had been completed, yet decisions by the editor would take weeks on end. We think this time could have been saved.
Each time the portal reflected that required reviews had been completed, yet decisions by the editor would take weeks on end. We think this time could have been saved.
Motivation:
IEEE TIM did an excellent job with handling my manuscript. The requirement that a manuscript reference specifically the I&M literature is something that new authors may not be aware of. They provide a list of I&M journals to help facilitate the process.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and the reviewers did an extraordinary job!
Motivation:
Prof. František Baluška was an excellent editor of this paper, thus, I fully recommend this journal. Moreover, the publisher made the paper available online within a couple of days.
Motivation:
The review process was not particularly quick but also not extremely slow. The reviewers read the manuscript and provided helpful feedback. After a minor revision decision and minor adjustments, it was surprising that the manuscript was sent out to reviewers again.
Motivation:
Very disappointing journal to work with. Not recommended.
Motivation:
The editor stated that the article is more of a method and not a tool. However, this argument was not correct, and the proposed method led to the presentation of a new tool. The article did not appear to have been carefully studied. However, this answer was not satisfying after 3.5 months.
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out some real technical problems. However, they continually compared our algorithm against algorithms that are solving a different problem. There was some value to their reviews due to the technical points they made, but I think they would have rejected anyway due to simply not reading carefully enough to compare the algorithm with the correct competing approaches.
Motivation:
The paper was submitted to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, who is one of the most important researchers in the field of the paper.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing. Unresponsive editorial staff. No reply to two online system inquiries. Minimally helpful reviews. Overall poor process experience w this journal. They have a lot of room for improvement.