All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The Editor didn't seem to care much about the manuscript although the journal itself has been known for publishing strong papers in related areas so I am really puzzled by this attitude. On the pros: there is a good TeX template and the Editorial staff seem to be responsive, plus the status tracking system is fairly transparent. On the downside: they couldn't find suitable reviewers fast enough so they asked me to provide a list of potential reviewers, which I did twice. After about ~2 months of waiting, they found two reviewers. At the end of the first round of reviews, one of the reviewer found the paper to be excellent while the other one didn't read past the first half and stated he wasn't happy at all, not even giving any detailed criticism to the points made in the paper. So after a mild revision which mainly concerned re-working the introduction and conclusions, the manuscript was sent back for reviews. After about 1.5 months, the Editor got back saying the Reviewer recommended to change the title. SInce this change wasn't really necessary at that time, I thought what the reviewer really wanted was an explanation to a few words in the title, so I modified the Introduction to clarify this. The manuscript has then been sent back to the Reviewers again, and the final round took about 35 days. The Reviewer then proposed another change of title which seemed to make more sense, which I did. Finally, after a few days the manuscript was accepted.

Motivation: The submission process was very easy and the decision was quite rapid (<1 week).

Motivation: The mentioned rejection time of 3 days on their website however, it took about 13 days to reject without peer review. And, recommended transfer of the manuscript to a much low, new journal of the system which clearly means they want to uplift their new journals at te cost quality work by others.

Motivation: The review process was incredibly slow. Three months after we submitted we asked the editor for an update, and it took four more months to get an extremely short 'minor revisions' review (it was so short and trivial they could have just accepted it conditional on us making a few word changes). Then despite multiple follow-ups from us, it took a year and a half after submitting the minor revisions for it to be accepted. They mentioned the journal was going through transitions, but since the revisions were trivial (not even needing the reviewer to look at them again) we didn't understand the delay.

Motivation: No reviews from any reviewer were received. In the comment section, only "Minor Contribution" words were mentioned.

Motivation: Very smooth and prompt review process. Reviewers were thorough and seemed attentive to the details and message conveyed to the readers. The last round of reviews took a day to be addressed because I made a single word change that may or may not have been considered important. As an author, I feel like that unnecessarily delayed the process for two weeks. Small complaint, but should be noted.

Motivation: The manuscript engages reviewers who are not remotely associated with the field or the specialization, which makes it impossible to address the reviews. We withdrew our manuscript as the questions from the editor and reviewers were complete waste of our time. The journal does not reply to questions. I would strongly advise against submitting to BMC ID.

Motivation: The manuscript was inadequately handled by Editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling" the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.

Motivation: minor comments from the reviewer to add some precision on experimental devices.

Motivation: The first reviewers comments was clear and understandable. However, the second reviewers comments does not relate to my paper at all. As my paper used secondary data, while all his comments related to primary data. Reviewers 2 has not bothered to read the paper and just copy-paste a comment from somewhere, which does not related to the paper at all. Overall poor job by the editor, who should at least review the paper to see whether comments are on merit or not

Motivation: Submitted the MS right before winter break. MS was sent out for review shortly after the new year. As they claimed, it took two weeks for the reviews to come back. Reviews were overall positive about our study. The paper was accepted with minor revisions. Overall, the review process was very smooth and quality of comments were high.

Motivation: The review process was efficient, two reviewer seemed to be quite familiar with the presented topic, the proposed comments were insightful and indeed improved the quality of the paper.