Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A templated desk-rejection letter. It's half the length of what's shown on the official website, but still a bit too long for a rejection.
n/a
n/a
58 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"...manuscripts of this type are not of high interest to the broad T-UFFC readership who are more interested in new ultrasound technologies that have demonstrated real-world applicability and advantages over other existing solutions,"
This determination took more than 8 weeks?
This determination took more than 8 weeks?
Motivation:
I feel like an out of scope rejection could have been processed quicker that 6 weeks.
Motivation:
Very long review process. Comments mentioned by reviewers could have been revised in the manuscript. Decision to reject not well explained.
Motivation:
This journal has one of the most disgusting review processes I have found in my experience. Not all the reviews are shared with the authors (only some of them are shared). Even after emailing multiple times regarding sensitive issues, there was no response from the editorial committee. The decision process takes way too long, with questionable remarks. Why is a decision being taken based on the comments of 1 reviewer, not all 4 (even after receiving the reviews).
In my case, one of the reviewers clearly broke the ethical boundary when he asked to cite his own papers. When refused, he outright rejected the paper without any proper justification. When I informed the editor regarding this multiple times, there was no response. but they rejected the paper solely based on this particular reviewer.
After almost a year of review, the authors atleast have the rights to see all the reviews and a transparent decision process. I am completely disgusted by this journal and I am never going to submit my paper ever again here - suggest others not to submit as well.
In my case, one of the reviewers clearly broke the ethical boundary when he asked to cite his own papers. When refused, he outright rejected the paper without any proper justification. When I informed the editor regarding this multiple times, there was no response. but they rejected the paper solely based on this particular reviewer.
After almost a year of review, the authors atleast have the rights to see all the reviews and a transparent decision process. I am completely disgusted by this journal and I am never going to submit my paper ever again here - suggest others not to submit as well.
Motivation:
I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal. After about five days of waiting, the editor sent it out for review to two referees.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
Motivation:
We have reviewed the Manuscript and provided answers to the observations, especially at the Discussion level.
Motivation:
The review process was very long, and most reviewers provided only general comments that did not significantly improve the manuscript. Additionally, the frequent change of reviewers made it difficult to progress, leaving authors stuck in a cycle of repeated revisions.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.
Motivation:
Some of the comments added to the verbosity of the paper, without improving its content significantly.
Motivation:
Took too much time for a standard desk rejection without providing specific reasoning.
Motivation:
After 1 month with no news, and after talking with peers and reading the reports on sites like this one, I decided to ask Plos One for news and specifically to ask how many reviewers had accepted to review. To my surprise, I learnt that zero reviewers had been secured, which in 15 years of being active has never happened, including twice at Plos One.
The editor was kept anonymous and the date of the last attempt to secure reviewers was unknown. So I decided that I was better off submitting elsewhere. I suspect that potential reviewers (including myself) do not see the interest of reviewing for this journal anymore, but that academic editors still accept the role but not the workload anymore.
Here is the semi-automatic response I got (same one as reported by others on this site)
"Thank you for following up. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out. "
The editor was kept anonymous and the date of the last attempt to secure reviewers was unknown. So I decided that I was better off submitting elsewhere. I suspect that potential reviewers (including myself) do not see the interest of reviewing for this journal anymore, but that academic editors still accept the role but not the workload anymore.
Here is the semi-automatic response I got (same one as reported by others on this site)
"Thank you for following up. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out. "
Motivation:
MY BEST BIRTHDAY GIFT :)
Strict reviewers and friendly editors. Although the review process was slow, the quality of the manuscript improved significantly. The journal places great emphasis on the innovativeness of studies and imposes no strict word limits.
Strict reviewers and friendly editors. Although the review process was slow, the quality of the manuscript improved significantly. The journal places great emphasis on the innovativeness of studies and imposes no strict word limits.
Motivation:
The review process was longer than expected.
However, I received constructive feedbacks and comments from the reviewers. All these helped me improve the language, flow, and rigor of the manuscript extensively.
However, I received constructive feedbacks and comments from the reviewers. All these helped me improve the language, flow, and rigor of the manuscript extensively.
Motivation:
A very disappointing experience with HELIYON. I've lost 15 months with 5 rounds of the reviewing process, which accounted for 7 different reviewers who argued for early minor revisions, which were later converted to major revisions. The editor never responds directly to our complaints, and finally, the editor claimed that the quality of the figure images needed to be improved substantially to be considered further. The Elsevier support team didn´t help much with our complaints, which were only passed on to the editorial board, who seemed uninterested
Motivation:
The paper was rejected following the opinion of just one reviewer, as no reviewer 2 provided no report. The issue of rejection was endogeneity. That was quite fair, but the reviewer comments were definitely not constructive.
Motivation:
Not interesting enough after all. The review reports are extensive and thoughtful.
Motivation:
This journal always returns its peer review results within two months, and the comments are positive, so I think it's a very good journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were extremely helpful.
The review process was smooth and transparent.
The review process was smooth and transparent.
Motivation:
The review process was remarkably fast, and the feedback was both positive and constructive. Although I have had varied experiences with this journal in the past, this particular one was excellent. I will certainly consider submitting more manuscripts to QSR in the future.
Motivation:
Reviewers gave some really brainless comments. The journal asks authors to submit a Word document, and one reviewer edited the text to put questions inside the main text, not as a comment (so annoying). One reviewer took it upon themselves to reword a paragraph, and their writing was absolutely terrible. One reviewer wanted to know the molecular weight of the Tris I used because some of them have different molecular weights, apparently, and the molecular weight on my bottle of Tris matched the molecular weight of Tris on Wikipedia, Sigma, etc. So either these reviewers are buying sketchy reagents or have never actually stepped foot into a lab before. Every comment was easily addressable, but more than half were a waste of time due to the reviewers' incompetence and poor understanding of the English language.
Motivation:
Fast and professional process
Motivation:
Strong journal. We submitted a paper with a rare (niche) topic. The paper was highly technical. The journal secured a reviewer in two weeks but could not find a second a reviewer. They proceeded with a single review + inhouse reviewer comments. Strong handling. Efficient.