Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No comments
Motivation:
The review process is clear and helpful.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
The reviewer's comments help us to improve the manuscript.
And finally, it was accepted to publish.
4.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor was prompt and courteous. The reviewer's comments were accurate and helpful in improving the paper.
Motivation:
The editor suggested an article transfer offer to another Elsevier journal.
Motivation:
The journal managed the submission really well and the reviews came in a timely fashion. Even thought the paper was rejected, the reviewers gave clear reasons why and how the paper could be improved.
Motivation:
Out of three reviewers, one reviewer provided very lengthy and helpful feedback. But it was detailed enough to make up for the other two reviews that did not provide much feedback. Also, the editor was swift in handling the ms and was kind and encouraging.
10.9 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I have not received suitable reviews in the first round. The second round review was better but there were not many changes for my manuscript in the second round.
Motivation:
The manuscript was thoroughly read and evaluated by the handling editor as well as discussed with additional editors. The work was considered important, however, not of high enough interest for a broader audience. Direct transfer to Nature Communications was proposed.
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were clear and coherent, but somewhat at odds with the journal's statement of scope.
Motivation:
The journal was clear and the reviews were helpful. Even though it took some time, it is quite understandable given the situation (written during the coronavirus pandemic). Editors were quick to respond to any inquiries and once the reviews were available they acted promptly.
Motivation:
Submission for a special issue, smooth.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews, which did improve the manuscript. However the process took a long time, and in later review rounds some of the requests became rather picky.
Motivation:
Efficient process that also improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
Even though they rejected the manuscript, I am happy with their prompt response. It did not waste time.
Motivation:
A ridiculously long initial review step. There seemed to be some back and forth among the editorial staff. Ultimately, it was clear that they lacked basic understanding of the system, even though they've published on it before. It was very frustrating, espicially given the lack of expertise by our handling editor. Ultimately the paper was published in a better journal so it was there loss, besides time.
Motivation:
They had far too many submissions for the special issue we targeted, clearly explained.
Motivation:
Good reviews with fairly quick handling for linguistics. Pragmatic and reasonable editors. All delays were due to me.
Motivation:
After 7 months our manuscript had still not been sent to reviewers. It was stuck in an administrative vortex from which we could find no escape, so we withdrew the paper.
On the other hand, colleagues have told me that they have published in the same journal without any problems.
On the other hand, colleagues have told me that they have published in the same journal without any problems.
Motivation:
Smooth handling process. Although rejected, reviewers provided thoughtful ideas and comments to improve the paper.
Motivation:
Our paper was transfered from NEJM to the journal.
Motivation:
Even though the review time is a bit long, the reviewers' comments were exactly to the point and it shows that they have dedicated a significant amount of time on reviewing my paper titled "A Robust Optimisation Framework for SCED Problem in Mixed AC-HVDC Power Systems with Uncertain Wind Power Generation" to IET Renewable Power Generation.
Here is a breakdown of the reviewing process for my paper: Submitted: Oct 2, 2019 IET RPG Asked for major revisions: March 20, 2020 Revised paper submission: April 9, 2020 Revised paper accepted: June 10, 2020. It took 8 months from the first submission to acceptance. Hope this review helps.
Here is a breakdown of the reviewing process for my paper: Submitted: Oct 2, 2019 IET RPG Asked for major revisions: March 20, 2020 Revised paper submission: April 9, 2020 Revised paper accepted: June 10, 2020. It took 8 months from the first submission to acceptance. Hope this review helps.
Motivation:
25 days for a desk rejection! I understand that it may be difficult to give speedy decisions for all authors, but this was unacceptable. A journal that pays its staff should be able to judge the suitability of the article within a few minutes... I asked why it was taking so long, if the article was not in peer review and never received an answer... The handling editor wasn't connected to my field, by a long shot and obviously did not take any real time to read the paper.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
They suggested transfer to scientific reports. Very displeased with the handling and do not recommend subjecting yourself to this nonsense.
Motivation:
The
Motivation:
Although I think 2 of the reviewers provided moderate comments and one of them believed that the work should be rejected, the other one provided literarily excellent comments and made the paper much better.
Motivation:
The communication from the journal side was very lacking. After the acceptance, the publication process was only set in motion after 6 months. No response was be given to any questions regarding when it would go through the publication handling.
Motivation:
The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall procedure of the review was acceptable and constructive.
Reviewers' comments have contained very professional questions and suggestions.
The overall procedure of the review was acceptable and constructive.
Reviewers' comments have contained very professional questions and suggestions.