Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Unfortunately, following editorial evaluation, we are unable to consider it further for publication in Advanced Optical Materials; however, we believe that your manuscript could be suitable for a sister journal with a more focused readership. We would therefore like to offer you a direct transfer, and my colleagues will be happy to evaluate your paper further here:
Motivation:
The reviewers are friendly but the questions are not very relevent to the paper. The review time is quite long for each round.
Motivation:
The Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT) Journal is the manager of the journal that I recommend, because it has good quality with reviewers from various countries.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
4.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
All the logistics of the Journal work perfectly, perhaps the only detail is that the times in general are a bit long.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers, who evidently did not take the trouble to read the text properly, advised rejection. It was also evident that this person was not competent enough regarding the topic. The other reviewer suggested that the manuscript be revised and this reviewer was also very clear about the relevance of the contribution. The suggested changes were also not too major so that I could have sent a revision in reasonable time. Still, the editors in charge decided that the manuscript should not be published, allegedly "in accordance with" the reviews.
Motivation:
There was a small pressure to conclude the revisions before the time I was waiting for. They give me just few days.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and harmful.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and without any problem.
Motivation:
Of the two reviews, one would be solid and useful and the suggestion was to make major changes. Another reviewer rejected the paper and did not give a single comment, only writing "unsatisfactory". Such a review can be done by anyone, which I believe significantly reduces the reputation of the journal. Waiting time for reviews was within acceptable.
Motivation:
I have no issues in the process. Since submission until publication take less than 7 months.
Motivation:
The journal has a section called "short papers", where is supposed to publish small researches, specially from undergraduate students. I sent the paper to this section in the OJS, but someone change my paper to the "long paper" section. I don't know the real reason, maybe because I was PhD candidate at that time, or because they receive very few short papers. The paper was extremely short, so obviously was rejected. I explain the situation by e-mail, and quickly the paper was reviewed again by reviewers of the "short papers" section. They requested small changes and so after it the paper was published. I think the paper was previously published under pre-print, but I am not sure about it.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were very helpful, and editorial office was very responsive to queries.
Motivation:
I think was a little invasive they sent to me the contact of one company to "pay for get proof-reading". And they also remove the acknowledgement message. Unnecessary.
Motivation:
When we first submitted our manuscript, editors took a week or 10 days to decide whether or not they will send it for external review. The first external review took the longest time - a little more than 2 months. We got a major revision, reviewer comments helped us in improving our manuscript. Once we submitted this revised version and the editors were satisfied with the changes made, there were several round of minor revisions in the next 2 months till we got final official acceptance.
Motivation:
Very rapid turnaround time. Peer reviewer comments were constructive and helped improve the manuscript. Editorial office was very responsive to all our inquiries.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and harmful. After my proposal be accepted they migrated to the OJS platform.
Motivation:
After three weeks at the editorial board, I received a generic one-liner reason for rejection, which says that the paper does not meet one or more requirements of the journal. I personally believe that the true reason for rejection is because the work is multi-disciplinary and the editor, who is only versed in one discipline might not have understood the true significance of the paper. In any case, they should have gotten back to me quicker.
Motivation:
Review process was incredibly slow. Reviews were of good quality. However, reviews were very positive, so the decision to reject was somewhat confusing. Editor justified decision by alluding to fit with the broader focus of the journal.
Motivation:
Review process was quick and the reviews were of good quality, very methodical. Reviews were very positive so rejection was surprising, but the editor justified it as lack of theoretical development.
Motivation:
Our paper was desk-rejected. No specific reasons were given for the decision, except that the editor felt it was not a good fit for the journal. At least they didn't take long.
Motivation:
The assigned editor decided to reject the manuscript without sending it to further review, because they considered it was out of the journal's scope.
Motivation:
The editor is very nice but told me Discourse & Society is overbooked and to find an alternative journal.
Motivation:
Long period between second revision and publication, almost one year
Motivation:
I was motivated to improve the paper because that was the first ever reviewer report for the paper. The reviewer comments did help in improving the paper. After I resubmitted the paper, it was outright accepted without any further changes.
Motivation:
The beginning of the reviewing process was delayed, but probably because of the COVID-19 problems at that time. After the first revision, the processing was significantly faster.
I am very much satisfied with the reviewer's and the editors' competence and engagement. Because the opinions of the two reviewers in the first review round were not entirely in agreement with each other, the Editor-in-Chief got involved with an additional, pretty comprehensive review. All three reviewers suggested major but very meaningful corrections. After resubmission of the revised manuscript, it went over a new round of revision of both reviewers plus the editor, and the manuscript was finally accepted with minor revisions.
I am pretty optimistic about the future of this new journal if they manage to keep such a high quality of reviewing as in the case of our manuscript.
I am very much satisfied with the reviewer's and the editors' competence and engagement. Because the opinions of the two reviewers in the first review round were not entirely in agreement with each other, the Editor-in-Chief got involved with an additional, pretty comprehensive review. All three reviewers suggested major but very meaningful corrections. After resubmission of the revised manuscript, it went over a new round of revision of both reviewers plus the editor, and the manuscript was finally accepted with minor revisions.
I am pretty optimistic about the future of this new journal if they manage to keep such a high quality of reviewing as in the case of our manuscript.