Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
editorial process and review process are very quick
Motivation:
Two of the initial reviews were excellent; the third was very cursory/generic. First round of reviews were extremely slow (~7 months) and I had to email to push things forward. The editor was clear, decisive, and fast after the initial slowness.
Motivation:
1st stage: I had waited 18 days for the editor to inform the external formal review.
2nd stage: Then after about 20 days, I received the decision letter of rejection and comments from two reviewers. The reviewers suggested the topic was not interesting enough and some other problems (though I think these were not).
I hope next time my work can get a higher recommendation.
2nd stage: Then after about 20 days, I received the decision letter of rejection and comments from two reviewers. The reviewers suggested the topic was not interesting enough and some other problems (though I think these were not).
I hope next time my work can get a higher recommendation.
Motivation:
The length of the review process was painfully slow. In the second round of reviews, I only received a review from one of the two reviewers and the entire review was 3 sentences long and one of the sentences complimented our improvements from the first round of edits. We were able to address these comments quickly, and it took another five months almost before the manuscript was accepted after these minor edits.
Motivation:
First review process a bit long, then paper was handled rapidly. Good overall comments and rapid publication online after acceptance.
Motivation:
The reviews were substantial and extensive; the editor explained why we did not get an R&R despite the potential (because it is not obvious from the reports in which of two directions we should develop the paper). One of the most encouraging rejections I've ever had.
Motivation:
We received a major revision and then the resubmission was accepted by the editor. We heard from 2 reviewers and their comments and suggestions were all spot-on, though some are tough to address. We even got an extension for resubmission from the assisting editors. The process was smooth and rigorous. The requirement of formatting was quite different than other journals in the field though.
Motivation:
Quick and speedy experience from submission to going online.
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of your ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications." My feeling is that: In earth science, if you want to publish a paper on such journals, you have to choose topics with "large-scale stories" like Earthquakes, Global climate change, Deep mantle or Subduction geodynamics, or Induced earthquakes (the larger the better).
Motivation:
Even though we felt like the reviews were rather positive, we still got a rejection. Overall though, we appreciated how quick and smooth the review process was.
Motivation:
The reviews made us question the competence of the reviewers. They did not seem to be familiar with the specifics of our field, and the methodological comments of one of the reviewers were surprisingly inadequate.
We raised our concerns to the editor but they took no further action. The manuscript was resubmitted to another journal.
We raised our concerns to the editor but they took no further action. The manuscript was resubmitted to another journal.
Motivation:
It took the journal over three months to obtain the reviews. During that time the journal made no attempts to get in touch or keep us updated about the status of the submission.
Eventually we received three reviews. One reviewer raised "serious issues" by pointing out lack of certain analyses, which actually were already described in the text. Another review was very positive. The third review discussed some issues but felt rather neural. Yet, the editorial decision was still a rejection, which after such a long reviewing process made this experience feel like a complete waste of time.
Eventually we received three reviews. One reviewer raised "serious issues" by pointing out lack of certain analyses, which actually were already described in the text. Another review was very positive. The third review discussed some issues but felt rather neural. Yet, the editorial decision was still a rejection, which after such a long reviewing process made this experience feel like a complete waste of time.
Motivation:
CONTINUED REVIEW FROM PREVIOUS POST:
Exactly one week after we requested to withdraw our manuscript, we received an apology for inappropriate Editor Handling (but not from the Handling Editor!) and with an “offer” of 20% reduction fee for our next published paper! We felt this response way out of place, if not belonging to other activities that are less related to academic publishing...
Needless to say, we politely declined their offer, our paper was formally withdrawn and we finally ended our 47-day “manuscript process” that never even got a first Editorial Decision from the Editor.
COMMENTS FIRST REVIEW:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by the 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 withdrew 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.
Having this experience, I might not be so keen to send manuscripts to this journal in the future.
Exactly one week after we requested to withdraw our manuscript, we received an apology for inappropriate Editor Handling (but not from the Handling Editor!) and with an “offer” of 20% reduction fee for our next published paper! We felt this response way out of place, if not belonging to other activities that are less related to academic publishing...
Needless to say, we politely declined their offer, our paper was formally withdrawn and we finally ended our 47-day “manuscript process” that never even got a first Editorial Decision from the Editor.
COMMENTS FIRST REVIEW:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by the 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 withdrew 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.
Having this experience, I might not be so keen to send manuscripts to this journal in the future.
Motivation:
Reviewer and editor comments helped improve the paper. Duration of review was reasonable.
Motivation:
very opaque editorial process. never heard that it went out for review. reviews were bare minimum feedback.
Motivation:
Very long process especially for the first review round
Motivation:
Don't waste your time for the IEEE Access!! It was the worst submission experience in my 7-years career.
We have submitted paper to the Special Section about machine learning. The title of our paper was a perfect match for the scope listed in call for papers. Imagine our surprise when we have received the "out of scope" reject.
We have asked for an explanation, and after a month they have repeated that the paper is "out of scope". We have then asked for an explanation once more, and after a week they have replied that the reject decision is reverted (without explaining anything) and the paper will be considered (reviewed).
After 3-weeks we have received the decision - reject without possibility to resubmit. There were two reviews. One quite constructive and merit (and suggesting the resubmission). The second one, on the other hand, was completely incorrect: the reviewer said that only binary classification was performed, while we have done multi-class classification (10 experiments) and binary classification (2 experiments). Furthermore, the reviewer said data set with more than 5k observations should be used, meanwhile we have used 8 data set with far more than 5k observations! There were 3-4 more comments like this (completely wrong or very general).
We have submitted paper to the Special Section about machine learning. The title of our paper was a perfect match for the scope listed in call for papers. Imagine our surprise when we have received the "out of scope" reject.
We have asked for an explanation, and after a month they have repeated that the paper is "out of scope". We have then asked for an explanation once more, and after a week they have replied that the reject decision is reverted (without explaining anything) and the paper will be considered (reviewed).
After 3-weeks we have received the decision - reject without possibility to resubmit. There were two reviews. One quite constructive and merit (and suggesting the resubmission). The second one, on the other hand, was completely incorrect: the reviewer said that only binary classification was performed, while we have done multi-class classification (10 experiments) and binary classification (2 experiments). Furthermore, the reviewer said data set with more than 5k observations should be used, meanwhile we have used 8 data set with far more than 5k observations! There were 3-4 more comments like this (completely wrong or very general).
Motivation:
Good review process. It took very long, but this was already indicated in the Instructions for Authors.
Motivation:
Quick and good review process which found the best qualified reviewer for my article.
Motivation:
The editor provided timely, highly engaged, and very constructive comments to help develop our paper before welcoming a second attempt at submission.
48.0 weeks
48.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
After 7 weeks under review, the online portal stated 'Awaiting Final Decision' but a day later it was sent back out to more reviewer(s). I felt that there was little need for 4 reviewers. The inclusion of a fourth reviewer did not help improve the manuscript substantially and it only slowed down the review process. Three reviewers would have been plenty. Moreover, at least two of the reviewers did not seem to read the manuscript thoroughly as they asked questions that were clearly addressed in the original manuscript.
Motivation:
Very quick and helpful reviewing process.
Motivation:
The comments from reviewers were detailed, constructive, and very thoughtful. The reviewers all showed great interest in the topic and seemed invested in improving the paper. They provided tips for various theoretical perspectives on the paper's topic and also gave recommendations of helpful references that all served to guide us on how the paper can be improved for future submission attempts.