Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Solid handling of manuscript. Professional and clear.
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers surprisingly said that our paper was unsuitable for the journal (and he was wrong to me), and the editor surprisingly decided to agree with him/her, so he recommended our article for rejection.
The other reviewer said that the paper was very good and could have been published with after few changes.
The other reviewer said that the paper was very good and could have been published with after few changes.
Motivation:
Very constructive, detailled comments and suggestions, which really improved the quality and argument of the article.
Motivation:
The first review process took quite a lot of time, which was a bit discouraging since we did not know whether our manuscript was being handled. Though, after the first round of review, the processing time has become reasonable. The quality of reviews was generally good and helpful.
Immediately accepted after 3.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Desk rejection took 23 days. The editor appointed was, I believe, not familiar with the discipline and the reason for rejection suggested they barely read past the cover letter.
9.3 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very long process but quite efficient
Motivation:
Standard desk rejection with transferal suggestion to Nature Communications.
Motivation:
The reason given by the editor was lack of significant novelty in terms of Lab-on-a-chip technology. He recommended to go for an application-oriented journal.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
Motivation:
Two days after submission we detected a small error and asked the editor to hold the manuscript before sending it to the reviewers, as we understood their evaluation would benefit from having the corrections already applied.
The manuscript was rejected within 24h of the resubmission, "Small receives many more submissions than we can possibly publish."
The editor offered, however, transfer to two of their sister journals with lower impact factor.
The manuscript was rejected within 24h of the resubmission, "Small receives many more submissions than we can possibly publish."
The editor offered, however, transfer to two of their sister journals with lower impact factor.
Motivation:
The processing was very fast and well handled.
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
The processing was fast and well handled
Motivation:
The processing was fast and well handled.
Motivation:
The processing was fast and accurate.
Motivation:
This journal rejected my manuscript, but it made me a reviewer
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and all process completed within a year from the first submission
Motivation:
The review process was smooth
Motivation:
The editor and the admins are not interested in replying inquiries. The paper was under review for 11 months. I have sent a few reminders to the editor and admin, and i have received no reply. Poor management.
Motivation:
It's been a long process, but the editor helped tremendously to navigate the critiques and turn this into a much more focused paper.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous. Two reviewer was assigned. One was very easy to convince. The other was very tough and provided significant improvement to the paper. Three rounds of review were needed for the acceptance of the manuscript. The editor was very helpful. Overall the experience was nice with this journal.
Motivation:
Although this submission was only a Letter to the Editor, I was pleasantly surprised by the prompt response from the editor (especially during the holiday season).
Motivation:
Professionally and efficiently handled. The reviewers comments were useful and fair. Very pleased.
Motivation:
The reviewers addressed important issues in the manuscript. Their comments are valuable in the improvement of my manuscript.
Motivation:
First round of review took nearly a year, I never received any reports, and nearly three years after submission and two after acceptance, the paper is nowhere near appearing.
Motivation:
The website kept altering the status between awaiting reviewer selection and awaiting reviewer assignment for 2.5 months. When contacting the journal, they state that the second reviewer is overdue in sending his comments. A couple of days after that, the journal send a rejection with a single reviewer comments which is a single sentence that is not understood as it has grammatical errors and lacks cohesion.