Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was clear and quick. They show the median time to first decision on the top page of their journal. In my case, it took a little longer than that but 2.4 week is enough short for me. Assistance of the journal officers was excellent.
Motivation:
Horrible experience with BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
After almost one year of very long (and useless) wait for poor reviews, we withdrew the article and submit it somewhere else.
After almost one year of very long (and useless) wait for poor reviews, we withdrew the article and submit it somewhere else.
Motivation:
Reviews are conducted in a timely manner.
Reviews are helpful for manuscript improvement
Reviews are helpful for manuscript improvement
Motivation:
The reviewers' reports were very interesting and helped us improve the manuscript.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
However, the review process between our resubmission and the outcome notification was extremely long: 3 months and 12 days.
Motivation:
A straight reject from one of the editors, who stated that we using only one dataset in our study was not enough to get to the review stage.
Motivation:
Our paper is covering a phenomenon within their aims and scope. They published papers in the relevant phenomenon before as well. Entirely ungrounded reasons for desk-rejection.
Motivation:
My experience with this journal was really the worst. Non-ethical with the authors.
Motivation:
The time for initial decision (two weeks) was a bit too long for a journal claiming "2 Avg Days Initial Editor Screening".
Motivation:
Fast first decision.
Motivation:
After 2 months and 10 days of wait, we received the reject notification from the editor, motivated by meagre and minimal review. The reviewer stated our dataset was too small, and recommended to turn down the article.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
Motivation:
Contribution is mostly empirical, not enough theoretical.
7.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
17.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
When reviewers have different opinion about a manuscript, it is very hard to please both. If that happens, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a dialogue with the editor before starting the revision.
Motivation:
Submitting my manuscript to Heliyon Environment was a great decision. The process was quick and and easy to follow. 3 weeks after submission my manuscript came already with the reviewers comments. The editorial team contacted three reviewers who did a thorough revision of my manuscript. After implementing the suggestions and corrections recommended the quality of the manuscript substantially improved. During the second round of revisions we had only minor corrections after which it was accepted without delay. I can say it was a fair revision process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers responded in a timely, constructive and efficient manner. The process was straightforward. The reviews were beneficial in strengthening the paper for publication.
Motivation:
"It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgements are based on such considerations as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness.
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
In this case, while we do not question the validity of your interesting work ..., I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings are sufficiently developed to justify publication in Nature Communications.
Although we cannot offer to publish your manuscript, I suggest that you consider transferring your manuscript to our sister journal, <i>Communications Biology</i>, a selective open-access Nature Research title led by an in-house editorial team that publishes research bringing new insight into a focused area of biology ."
Motivation:
Out of the 3 reviews I received, 2 were of specially high quality; both of the suggested revisions but the comments were reasonable and they made me realise where I didn't include enogh details of my analysis in the first version. The third review was quite problematic, though, as this person was evidently biased against the framework and repeatedly misquited both my research and that of others.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
Motivation:
Though the one reviewer assigned was overall helpful and professional, I cannot say the same about the handling editor. My paper was rejected based on a single review report (which was not all that negative to motivate rejection). I was left with the impression that my paper was rejected because they did not want to spend time finding additional referees.
Motivation:
The content which I have presented in my manuscript seems to be novel and productive information. Hence, Nature biotechnology journal is exactly fitted for review.
Motivation:
Editorial decisions were fast and seemed fair, reviews were of very good quality and the editor also gave useful comments on the manuscript.
Motivation:
After sending a pre-submission early on (which is required for perspective papers in the journal), we were invited to submit the full manuscript. We got a desk rejection, so we found the pre-submission step useless. The decision was very fast, so no time was wasted.