Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They decided that the topic was not an important enough advance to warrent publication in Nature Ecology and Evolution. They discussed the content of the paper with colleagues at Nature Communications who said they would send it out for review. We transfered to NC and it was sent immediately for review.
Motivation:
Very quick response time (imm rejection). The decision was shortly explained and valid arguments were given.
Motivation:
The rejection was fast but ultimately fair.
Motivation:
The editor seemed to have rejected it without giving it a read,
Motivation:
Good reviewing but took some time.
Motivation:
Constructive and critical reviews. Helpful editorial guidance. Very rapid handling time. All in all, very good experience.
Motivation:
I receive a good amount of reviews (3). However, their comments were superficial. It seems they were not experts on the field. Moreover, they did not receive my revised manuscript and it was handled by editors. They carefully revised the manuscript and provide several comments for the final version. The communication with the assistant editor was always fluid.
Motivation:
We submitted a pair of back-to-back papers as a full story to be considered by Sci. Adv.
The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).
The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
The first half of the story was out for review, we do not know the result as of yet (Dec 19th 2019).
The paper being rejectedhere is the second half of the story. It is of great importance (at least we think so), but was rejected without review.
Motivation:
It was my first publication, I got comments from three reviewers. After revise and resubmit I got three reports from the same reviewers and finally after revise and resubmit I got acceptance from the editor.
Motivation:
The journal of antibiotics has an outstanding review and my manuscript was improved after revision.
Motivation:
Review process was very very long. First we got one reviewer and 2 month later another 2 reviewers. This came as a surprise. It was all together some what confusing and took to much time.
Motivation:
Even if the waiting period was average for a journal of this calibre, I would have expected after 4.5months to receive at least 2 peer reviews that could have helped me amend the paper better for the next submission. What made it worse was that despite the rejection, the feedback was generally positive and the paper could have easily been accepted with correction. Again, this made it more difficult when reworking the paper.
Motivation:
After waiting for 2 years and reviewed by 4 reviewers, my manuscript was accepted and positive remarks given by 3 reviewers. The last and 4th reviewer has given negative remarks without suggesting any changes to be done. Therefore editor has make decision to revise again but without any remarks and making long delay, I have decided to withdraw my paper from journal after wasting 2 years.
Motivation:
Long review time.
Motivation:
Very quick review process, good reviewer comments.
2.7 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This is a top journal with extensive review conducted smartly and effectively fast. The journal is open access, and fees may be a challenge without funding
n/a
n/a
384 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It took 14 months to make the decision not to review, this is way too long especially after contacting the editor twice after 6 months on the status of the manuscript. The review process is a waste of time.
Motivation:
The Editor could not identify suitable reviewers for the topic and kept the manuscript for 20 months. I sent mails after one year to the editor and the journal manager to make a decision on time so that I can consider alternative journals if necessary, but the editor refused to respond, until 20 months was wasted before rejecting the manuscript. This poor practices by editorial teams frustrate authors to submit to multiple journals at one.
Motivation:
The reviewers seemed interested and informed on the topic. Feedback was generally constructive and aimed at increasing clarity.
From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time.
From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time.
Motivation:
The review process and editorial handling was far superior to many encountered. There was some delay in receiving the final decision after revision. The online proofing system did not work and there was some inflexibility in handling the proof corrections but overall a very positive experience.
Motivation:
My coauthor and I felt stuck with this project so we sent it off to get some critical feedback. I was worried about a desk reject but the editor sent it out to external reviewers. There were two reviewers who suggested a denial and the other two suggested an R&R with major revisions. The feedback included suggestions for additional data and clarifying theoretical frameworks. The editor was an expert on the topic I was writing on, so he gave us a thorough feedback in his letter too. He suggested a denial, but I was not surprised by the result.
Motivation:
Although we got a "conditional accept" and the reviewers argued that we followed all suggestions of round 1 in a satisfying way, the editor decided to reject the paper. He argued with the journal's backlog.
Further, reviewer 2 had some new comments which she has not mentioned in her first review (and which did not raise because of our revision). The editor argued that manuscripts are rejected, if there are issues remaining after the first revision.
This was the worst experience I've ever had with a review process.
Further, reviewer 2 had some new comments which she has not mentioned in her first review (and which did not raise because of our revision). The editor argued that manuscripts are rejected, if there are issues remaining after the first revision.
This was the worst experience I've ever had with a review process.
Motivation:
The initial review process was longer than I had anticipated, but the reviews were on the whole thorough and useful. On second review the additional comments were very useful and caught errors we missed which were highly beneficial for the article. The editor was very helpful throughout the review process, and ultimately I am glad we submitted to the Journal of Anatomy.
Motivation:
Reviews were (relatively) helpful, and the outcome being a rejection was not entirely surprising given the reviews. However, the journal took way too long to share these reviews after they had come in. It took months "Awaiting decision" and some email exchanges with the editors to get a reply. Nevertheless, the editorial staff was helpful and approachable.
Motivation:
The feedback of the reviewers was very constructive and helpful, which improved the paper greatly. Benjamin Sovacool's personal comments further showed the interest in the paper and was very much appreciated. Overall smooth and timely revision process!
0.7 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Opinions of the reviewers are useful and helpful to our manuscript. This journal is very efficient!
Motivation:
Fair experience of the review process.