Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Both reviewers dedicated much attention to the paper and were very accurate in writing their comments. Also the suggestions of the editor during the entire review process were useful and to the point. Finally, the whole process was handled in relatively short time.
Motivation:
While the review process did help make the paper better in certain ways, the time from submission to acceptance took over 1 year. After the first round of revisions, we "lost" one of the reviewers so the editor picked up a 3rd reviewer who commented on how well we addressed the reviewer we lost, and then added more comments of their own - suggesting several additional experiments. I believe the editor could have played a better role here and either made a decision on how well we addressed the original reviewer comments, or reigned in the new 3rd reviewer and only allowed them to make comments without suggesting more experiments.
Motivation:
The process was very smooth and rather quick. However, the reviewers appear to be completely uninterested in the relevance of the results and appear to focus primarily on whether the method you use is an innovative complex econometric analysis. Thus I would advice to submit there only if you do carry out such an analysis.
Motivation:
They said they received a large number of submission journals
Motivation:
From submission to retraction, it has taken me 15.4 weeks. In between, I have sent emails to their EIC multiple times trying to get an updates but they never replied.
When I retracted, they replied within one day saying there was no withdrawal option within the system and chose to "reject" my paper.
While it is the first time I wrote about this journal the SciRev website, it was not my first time encountering such unreasonable delays.
When I retracted, they replied within one day saying there was no withdrawal option within the system and chose to "reject" my paper.
While it is the first time I wrote about this journal the SciRev website, it was not my first time encountering such unreasonable delays.
Motivation:
an editor said that the work doesn't reach their socalled high standard without even reading our manuscript
Motivation:
In order to make it more personal, ChemComm includes a manuscript summary sentence in the editor's own words in the desk rejection letter. Our manuscript has been found of insufficient novelty. The summary sentence summarized only one of many experiments described in the manuscript and referenced a substance that was not discussed in the manuscript. We felt that instead of promised "careful evaluation", our manuscript has been subjected to a cursory glance that led to a false and inadequate summary of the manuscript. In our experience, sloppy and incompetent are the words to describe the initial assessment process at ChemComm
Motivation:
I fully understand that Radiology is highly selective. However, I am unclear as to why "our journal does not cover the topic" of the manuscript, when the manuscript covers a creative use of B-mode ultrasonic imaging in the laboratory setting. Clarification will be sought.
Motivation:
they stated our paper is not quite related to their journal topic, although the journal do publish many papers on this topic. this is ridiculous
Motivation:
The editorial processing was very efficient and fast
Motivation:
very fast rejection
Motivation:
The process was quick. We were rejected, but we received positive and helpful comments from reviewers that enjoyed our manuscript but didn't think jeb was the right place for it. I ultimately agreed that the topic would be better suited for a different journal.
Motivation:
The review process was swift, some comments were useful, the editor is very good in handling this.
Motivation:
Understandably, if a paper does not fit the journal, then it should be rejected. But taking about 3 months for a desk rejection is perhaps too long and unprofessional.
Motivation:
We managed to satisfy the reviewers pretty quickly, but the editor was relentless in pushing us towards clearer language and making apparent the contribution to the literature more. This was painful, but we ended up with a much better manuscript.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgments are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Motivation:
After our careful reading and team discussion, unfortunately we are not seeing your manuscript as a strong candidate for MP and thus can not recommend it for external peer reviews.
Motivation:
Good process. Good journal.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and the reviewers' reports detailed with many useful comments.
Motivation:
The review process was overall good and efficient. We got comments from two reviewers, both liked the idea of the paper but recommended a major revision that required a lot of effort from our side. The reviewers fully understood the paper and their comments really made the paper better. Overall, great review process, fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The review comments were not constructive and overly focused on theory, not the method of the study.
Motivation:
The manuscript was previously reviewed by another same-tier journal. They rejected it but had offered more positive feedback and constructive comments. On the contrary, JAIS was not offering comments that might help improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
We received two reports. The first one was focused and asked for additional robustness tests to add credibility to the findings. These comments were useful and helped us improve the paper. The second report clearly indicated that the reviewer did not "liked" the paper and provided negative and somehow irrelevant comments regarding the methodology. Both reports had relatively contradictory perspectives about the paper.