Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
High quality reviews, fast handling
Motivation:
We receive one report from a reviewer. The report was clear and detailed and the reviewer explained that the paper's contributions were not significant enough for this journal. He/she also pointed out several problems (motivation and background). The total handling time was a bit too long but the quality of the report was very good.
Motivation:
The review process was quick. The editors and reviewers were fair.
Motivation:
It took the Editorial Office four weeks to come up with this statement:
"We have considered your manuscript for publication in JMSC and regrettably conclude that this manuscript is not suited for publication in this journal.
Please note that this does not pass judgment on the technical aspects of your research. The decision is solely based on the contributions of the manuscript as the findings do not indicate significant new advances in the understanding of materials science that justify publication in JMSC." The member of the Editorial Office, who checked our manuscript, had H-index of 13.
"We have considered your manuscript for publication in JMSC and regrettably conclude that this manuscript is not suited for publication in this journal.
Please note that this does not pass judgment on the technical aspects of your research. The decision is solely based on the contributions of the manuscript as the findings do not indicate significant new advances in the understanding of materials science that justify publication in JMSC." The member of the Editorial Office, who checked our manuscript, had H-index of 13.
Motivation:
If the manuscript not suitable with a scop of a journal, it should be rejected in couple of days, not after around 5 weeks.
Motivation:
Editors didn't understand the objectives and methods of the paper. One even said that there are already a huge number of publications doing sophisticated data analysis without it, which makes no sense, since this could be said for everything in life: we won't need a printer because we already have the Gutenberg's press, we won't need TV because we already have radio, etc. Very poor understanding of the topics. Speed: 10/10. Review: 0/10. Overall score: 1/10.
Motivation:
The review process was a bit overshadowed by the fact that the editor had to ask 12 potential reviewers to receive two reviews. The communication with the editor was very effective and constructive. As to the reviews, from the suggestions of the first reviewer it was possible to conclude that this was an expert in the field. The comments from the other reviewer were a bit out of place and one could only conclude that the reviewer was not the field expert.
Motivation:
Even though my manuscript was rejected, I was impressed by the speedy and thorough review process.
Motivation:
Reviewers seemed to have zero knowledge about machine learning topics, which I think it was the main reason for rejection.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, the longest part of the whole process was the manuscript not being assigned a manuscript number for three weeks. We had to chase up the editorial office for the manuscript to be assigned a number.
Motivation:
The editorial manager system didn't notify me once the first decision was in. Otherwise, a very useful review procedure, which included thorough language editing.
Motivation:
It took one complete year. The communication with the editor was always fluid. However, the paper went through four unnecessary rounds and the editor just made comments at the end (did she read it before?). The review could be improved if the editor takes a more active role as a referee and provide feedback earlier in the process.
Motivation:
Review process was quick and professional.
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