Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected even though the journal was calling for papers for a special issue on the manuscript topic.
Motivation:
The editor of the journal clearly searches for quality articles. Although the paper improved thanks to the involvement of the editor, the process took too long.
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 recommended approval but the comments were poor, Reviewer 2 recommended rejection but his comments were also poor. The editor recognized that a third review should be obtained, but told us that this could take many more months, so they chose to reject the article.
33.0 weeks
41.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall, the process of review was decent, but not excellent. The first reviews took very long to arrive. When they did arrive, two of the reviewers made very minor comments about the paper. Only one of the reviewers commented in detail, which we were very happy to listen to. Ultimately, the paper was accepted without too much difficulty.
Motivation:
The editorial team had a professional and honest attitude. Judging by their reviews, the selected reviewers were well versed in the field of submitted research and provided quality comments and suggestions for improvement. Technical support was quick to respond and effective. Overall, the publishing process was a pleasant experience.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor did talk to two associate editors, and they concluded that "...the manuscript has a greater emphasis on chemistry than typical papers in IEEE UFFC."
Motivation:
The process was amazingly quick, and they suggested an article transfer to Ultrasonics Sonochemistry. However, I feel it was not completely fair because the aims and scope of Ultrasonics was listed as covering all aspects of ultrasonics - are chemically related papers automatically out-of-scope? If so, that fact was never publicized on the journal website.
Motivation:
The comments were reasonable and useful
33.9 weeks
37.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall good experience but needed to follow up with journal because it was dragging on and they couldn't get second reviewer to return review so editor stepped in. Quick process after that.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
IEEE UFFC is technical, and legitimately so. However, if something happens to be genuinely simple, should it be automatically excluded?
Motivation:
Altogether, the handling of the manuscript has been rapid and efficient. One of the two reviewers screened the manuscript in very best practice, evaluated chapter by chapter even for complex mathematical content, gave inspired positive feedback and provided helpful comments with regard to the existing content. The second reviewer obviously did not deal with the scientific methods and results of the manuscript in detail (if at all). Finding his own opinion contradicted in the results and discussion chapter, this reviewer requested explanation for questions which were out-of-scope of the manuscript. After three months of additional intensive research we provided detailed explanations in a substantially enlarged revision. The editorial board rejected our revised submission, arguing that one referee had recommended against publication. The first referee did not have any further objections. The reasons given by the second referee were demonstrably counterfactual and completely unrelated to the explanations and changes requested in the first review. It is questionable whether the editors had carefully judged the referees' work, as they had weighted the superficial review higher than the accurate one.
Motivation:
I have appealed and pointed out that
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.
Motivation:
The managing editor is nice and communicable. The reviewers' comments are insightful and positive. It is a good spot to share your research related to patient care in the medical arena.
Motivation:
The reviewers had appreciated our work and had a few queries. It did not take much effort to address those queries.
Motivation:
First, it took 2 months to find an Editor, and the process only begun after inquiries from the author. Then they said they did not find suitable reviewers, but only after another inquiry from my side. Lastly, they rejected without any real, substantial review, which could have been done by the editor in the first place before sending it out for review.
Motivation:
The editors are quite helpful. The feedback were quite useful. Authors should be aware, however, journals under Emerald (including Library Hi-Tech) are having and editorial office which would ask you to handle many minor issues on your own (which will be handled by the editorial office of other publishers).
Motivation:
the journal is very good and takes less time for review.
Motivation:
Seemingly arbitrary decision, not substantiated by any reason, and contrary to reviewers comments
I regret to inform you that reviewers have advised against publishing your manuscript, and we must therefore reject it. Please refer to the comments listed at the end of this letter for details of why I reached this decision.
But see here:
Overall comments: Worthy of publication with minor revisions and added information.
I regret to inform you that reviewers have advised against publishing your manuscript, and we must therefore reject it. Please refer to the comments listed at the end of this letter for details of why I reached this decision.
But see here:
Overall comments: Worthy of publication with minor revisions and added information.
Motivation:
The "Initial Quality Control" usually takes 4-5 days, which is quite slow. Then the EIC gives a rapid rejection decision (1 day later) without external review for considering novelty. Why not EIC directly give a decision? I guess the "Initial Quality Control" is just for checking the format and data policies. Why so long!..............................! Hope for an improvement!
Motivation:
The process was smooth. Just a few minor issues (when the revision was asked, they forgot to attach one report; when the paper was accepted, the process to edit the file and put it online was a bit long and not so efficient)