Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It was a high quality, sophisticated, and professional review process
Motivation:
Very detailed comments by the reviewer.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Good handling by the editors, sometimes a bit delay response to questions.
Motivation:
Very professional handling by the editor. Quick and precise response in case of questions.
Motivation:
Before submitting my manuscript to this journal, I had heard from colleagues that the review cycle was lengthy, and I was a bit concerned, but based on my personal experience, it didn't appear to be that bad.
I had already submitted this manuscript to another journal, which had undergone revisions. Finally, because the journal is on hold, I drew back the manuscript and submitted it to Sage Open.
I had three reviewers, one of whom was quite experienced and gave many suggestions to improve the article's quality. One reviewer raised a few trivial questions, and another mentioned a few minor issues. Overall, the reviewers' comments on the article appeared positive, and I received a minor revision-no additional reviews.
I received the acceptance letter about two weeks after submitting my revised paper. During this time, I asked once on the status of the paper to the editor.
In summary, my overall impression of this journal is satisfactory, and I will most likely submit to the journal again.
I had already submitted this manuscript to another journal, which had undergone revisions. Finally, because the journal is on hold, I drew back the manuscript and submitted it to Sage Open.
I had three reviewers, one of whom was quite experienced and gave many suggestions to improve the article's quality. One reviewer raised a few trivial questions, and another mentioned a few minor issues. Overall, the reviewers' comments on the article appeared positive, and I received a minor revision-no additional reviews.
I received the acceptance letter about two weeks after submitting my revised paper. During this time, I asked once on the status of the paper to the editor.
In summary, my overall impression of this journal is satisfactory, and I will most likely submit to the journal again.
Motivation:
The review period was short, and the submitting process was simple. From the time of application till acceptance, everything went really well.
Motivation:
My first paper that's mostly theoretical, so hard to gauge the reviews, overall a bit slow, but satisfactory.
Motivation:
Fairly standard review as I'm used it at JEMS, with decent reviews that increased clarity of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Useful and thoughtful reviews, even though rejected. Timely.
Motivation:
Strange choice of reviewer who was strangely scathing in the legitimacy of the data collection and findings.
Motivation:
I don't face any kind of inconvenience while inserting my manuscript into this journal.
Motivation:
The only "reviewer comment" was an offer to transfer the paper to Translational Medicine Communications (which is currently neither indexed by PubMed nor Clarivate) "without sending your manuscript out for another round of review". The whole process was a complete waste of time.
Motivation:
The Chief Editor appears to have a different timeline for manuscript processing compared to the associate editors at JRS. Based on my experience as a reviewer for the journal, the associate editors typically process peer reviews and recommendations within one to two months. However, during my latest submission, despite the associate editor's recommendation to transfer my manuscript to another journal within a few weeks, it took the chief editor more than four months to issue a desk rejection. Throughout this period, I reached out to Elsevier multiple times seeking updates on the status of my manuscript. After a wait of five months, my manuscript was rejected without specific feedback or suggestions for improvement. I'm sorry I can't find another way to describe this other than unprofessional. Researchers might want to be aware of these timelines before considering the journal for their submissions.
Motivation:
The handling times by the editor were very long. After R1 reviews were completed, we had to ask about the progress, only after which we got the decision.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Motivation:
The reviewers failed to recognize that we submitted a communication and expressed dissatisfaction with the limited inclusion of just two figures. Their feedback included a mix of inaccuracies and irrelevant suggestions, such as altering bond lengths and the molecule's name. In the end, only a few questions from one of the reviewers proved genuinely constructive. The second reviewer provided an extensive 28 comments, with roughly 20 of them being redundant and unhelpful.
Motivation:
This has been the worst journal I dealt with.
We wait for 45 days, than for 45 working days and still nothing. Then we wrote to the office and they explained they are in a search for a senior editor, since no one was willing to handle our paper. Then the editor was finally found. From the end of April until the beginning of August, they could not find 2 reviewers. Then we drew back the paper.
We wait for 45 days, than for 45 working days and still nothing. Then we wrote to the office and they explained they are in a search for a senior editor, since no one was willing to handle our paper. Then the editor was finally found. From the end of April until the beginning of August, they could not find 2 reviewers. Then we drew back the paper.
Motivation:
This journal has excellent work flow. The editors-in-chief are prompt and reviewers are on a high level.
Motivation:
The first round of review was fast (2 months) and the editor spared us from considering additional problems suggested by the reviewer. The report felt like the referee did not completely understand the problem in consideration.
Motivation:
The review was not helpful. Editor failed to get enough reviewers and did not care about it.
Motivation:
Very disappointed about Nature Geoscience and the editor (Dr. Richardson).
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
I had reached out to the editor for an update after patiently waiting ~4 weeks, only to receive a response that was disappointingly brief and perfunctory. It offered no guidance for further improvement, and it seems to based on some template.
The editor claim to 'aim to return most manuscripts as quickly as possible to avoid a time-consuming peer review process', while wasting my time by providing no response until I sent an email to him.
Very irresponsible. Shame.
Motivation:
It took a very long time to process the submission and if I did not email the editor, it could take even longer. Two reviewers offered very limited ideas to improve the paper and so, the review of the RR submission should not have taken a long time but it did. Again, I had to email the editor who seem to be too busy to handle.
Motivation:
Very long time before first response from editor. In fact, never received a response based on the content.
Motivation:
The first reviews was provided us in few months which one of it suggests us only to change some typos and cite his works. Than after 5 months (we sent many mails to remember) they sent us 3 short reviews with other reviewers (the previous one probably didn't show up), that suggested which one of it suggested us to reduce the number of references and the length of the paper. At least the paper is published but the quality of the reviews and the time spent waiting the response for us was to excessive.
Motivation:
The two reviewers provided solid comments, and the editorial staff was very responsive when inquired about the status of the paper.
Motivation:
The journal offers a rapid and transparent review process, and the feedback from the reviewers greatly assisted us in enhancing the manuscript to make it more thorough and readable.
Motivation:
It went out to review on the day of submission itself. Its editorial handling and the review process was fast
Motivation:
Very helpful and friendly reviews even when it was a rejection. I improved my research project so much based on reviewers' and editor's comments.