Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No reasons were given for a desk-rejection. They did not even provide any comments for improvement or on scope fitness. This is unfair, and unconstructive for knowledge advancement. They should learn respecting other authors.
Motivation:
The editor said only one reviewer accepted the invitation. The reviewer said my manuscript was interesting and only left a few minor comments about wording, while the editor still rejected my manuscript without any justification. Very disappointed.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted March 15th 2022.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
Motivation:
The paper was decided to be "not competitive enough for the limited space". We received two nonconstructive reviews that seemed put together last minute. I was very surprised on the low quality review from a journal like Science. One review said that we didn't provide evidence for a competing theory in the field, the second asked us to repeat data from 3 previous manuscripts from our lab, suggesting a thorough review process was not done.
Motivation:
Editor informs after the first round of revision that the comments of reviewer are not available. The rejection was done by the editor even not considering at all the rebuttal. In my long career this was the worst experience at all.
Motivation:
Over 12 weeks for an email to say the manuscript was not being sent for external review is unacceptable.
Motivation:
Smooth sailing, but first round took surprisingly long...
Motivation:
Pretty slow initial review, but reviews were excellent and the subsequent rounds really improved the paper a lot.
Motivation:
The Editors made inaccurate statements about COPE guidelines in their decision letter and use these statements to justify why they declined to further consider the submission.
Motivation:
The EIC kept authors wait very very long. The publisher was impolitely treating the authors. Addressable concerns were served as ground of rejections.
Motivation:
This is a multi-disciplinary business journal currently with a Finance background professor as EIC. Author will submit their manuscript specifying which section to submit (i.e., IS, Marketing, HRM...etc)
The phenomenon of my RQ is somewhat multi-dimensional. My RQ may not be interesting from a finance researcher's perspective, but not necessarily in other area researchers' perspective. I did not choose the finance sub-section for my submission, but he overwhelmingly accused that I did not justify the value of my research. He used his angle to judge, without passing it to section editor (head), and thus rejected my paper.
The truth is, I have already provided many related market statistics (which justify the value of my RQ), stated my RQ clearly, and have cited literature that tried to answer my RQ but did not provide very concrete answer.
He did not acknowledge the fact that a phenomenon related to finance can also be related to other areas. Studying a multi-dimensional phenomenon requires embracing diversity. Being the EIC of a multi-disciplinary business journal also requires embracing diversity. But the EIC of AJM did not.
The phenomenon of my RQ is somewhat multi-dimensional. My RQ may not be interesting from a finance researcher's perspective, but not necessarily in other area researchers' perspective. I did not choose the finance sub-section for my submission, but he overwhelmingly accused that I did not justify the value of my research. He used his angle to judge, without passing it to section editor (head), and thus rejected my paper.
The truth is, I have already provided many related market statistics (which justify the value of my RQ), stated my RQ clearly, and have cited literature that tried to answer my RQ but did not provide very concrete answer.
He did not acknowledge the fact that a phenomenon related to finance can also be related to other areas. Studying a multi-dimensional phenomenon requires embracing diversity. Being the EIC of a multi-disciplinary business journal also requires embracing diversity. But the EIC of AJM did not.
Motivation:
Reviews were mostly excellent. However, the review process stalled for a long time without explanation. After six months of inaction I contacted the associate editor dealing with my manuscript, who did not reply to repeated emails over the following six months. At that point I contacted the editors and the situation was resolved rapidly.
Motivation:
Desk rejection within 1 week. Out of scope / topic too narrow. Fast decision.
Motivation:
Fast desk rejection. We appreciate the speed of the journal.
Motivation:
We submitted a manuscript to this journal in February 2022. We were quickly requested to make some revisions by the handling editor. We resubmitted in April 2022. After that, the whole managing process was a pure disaster. The journal failed to secure reviewers for one year. We inquired about the status multiple times and even send lists with potential reviewers.
After 14 months, we were told that our manuscript would not fit within the scope of the journal (although we published 2 comparable manuscripts in the same journal). I would not submit here again. GLAH has changed and we cannot say anything positive about the communication with the editorial office.
After 14 months, we were told that our manuscript would not fit within the scope of the journal (although we published 2 comparable manuscripts in the same journal). I would not submit here again. GLAH has changed and we cannot say anything positive about the communication with the editorial office.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was desk rejected after 4 weeks. We were not given a reason.
Motivation:
AE is excellent but the reviewers are bad, they comment aggressively without any improvement advise.
Motivation:
The reviews were high-quality but the review process took a very long time. The holdup was primarily due to the handling editor.
Motivation:
Of course it is not always easy to find reviewers on voluntary basis, however, for a journal with such an high IF, more emphasis could have been lied on finding suitable reviewers. Overall it took quite long, though everything up to half a year is fine. Times for editor handling were quite lengthy.
5.2 weeks
24.2 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Our manuscript faced rejection after two rounds of review, despite receiving favorable recommendations from three out of four reviewers. Initially, one reviewer endorsed our work for publication, and after the first round of review, a second reviewer joined in their support. Following the second review round, a third reviewer not only recommended publication but also praised our efforts.
However, the fourth reviewer, who consistently recommended rejection throughout the process, exhibited self-contradiction in each round of review. This reviewer presented entirely unscientific arguments, such as personal experiences, which were not only weak but also incorrect. We addressed and refuted each of the reviewer's points using our data and supplementary scientific literature, yet the editor ultimately decided to reject our paper.
In my perspective, the review process was undemocratic, opaque, and unscientific. We sought clarification from the editor regarding the decision to reject our work despite the favorable recommendations of three out of four reviewers, but we received no response. Interestingly, the journal's editors have recently published articles similar to our own. While I hesitate to directly suggest a bias, it is challenging not to entertain such an assumption in the face of an evidently undemocratic and unscientific procedure.
However, the fourth reviewer, who consistently recommended rejection throughout the process, exhibited self-contradiction in each round of review. This reviewer presented entirely unscientific arguments, such as personal experiences, which were not only weak but also incorrect. We addressed and refuted each of the reviewer's points using our data and supplementary scientific literature, yet the editor ultimately decided to reject our paper.
In my perspective, the review process was undemocratic, opaque, and unscientific. We sought clarification from the editor regarding the decision to reject our work despite the favorable recommendations of three out of four reviewers, but we received no response. Interestingly, the journal's editors have recently published articles similar to our own. While I hesitate to directly suggest a bias, it is challenging not to entertain such an assumption in the face of an evidently undemocratic and unscientific procedure.
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers is very biased. No suggestions were provided but only commented that our paper lack novelty (the review report simply includes 4-5 sentences..)... However, the other reviewer gave us very positive comments highlighting our contributions and novelty.
Based on these comments, our paper was rejected directly. We feel unfair.
Based on these comments, our paper was rejected directly. We feel unfair.
Motivation:
The individual responsible for coordinating the manuscript was quite helpful in guiding the submission and revision process. Additionally, the review process was efficient and without complications, with the reviewers' feedback proving constructive in enhancing the manuscript's quality.
Motivation:
The review process took unacceptably long (and did not even start in the first 6 months) and it occurred only by very extensive help from the author team (suggesting an unusually large number of potential peer reviewers). The remaining aspects of the review process were quite reasonable.
Motivation:
My experience with FIP was not so satisfactory. The outcome is that I withdrew the submission.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and the submission process was straightforward.
Motivation:
Long review process. Two reviews were around a paragraph with no engagement with the actual manuscript. One reviewer was constructive and helpful, but freely admitted to not understanding the basics of the quantitative methods despite providing critiques. Editor indicated agreeing with the reviewers despite the reviewers providing contradictory statements, such as one reviewer saying there was bad engagement with the literature and the other indicating that the literature review was easy to follow and comprehensive.
28.0 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The paper was handled in a very poor way. It was under review for almost 7 months and the AE failed to secure two referees. The report we received by a single referee had criticisms that were either scientifically wrong or referred to typos that could easily be fixed. The AE was also obviously not following even the broader topic elaborated in the paper. The problem with the process of the journal is not the rejection per se. Many journals might reject a paper even if nothing is technically wrong with it. It is simply disrespectful to have a paper for 7 months and not even manage to provide feedback from two reviewers. After the first 5 months or so I had to bother them with emails every now and then, only to get answers of the type that “the AE is working hard to secure a second referee”. That info was first sent to me on Feb 23rd, 2023 while the paper was submitted on Sept 5th, 2022. The paper got rejected on the 20th of March, 2023.
The paper was handled in a very poor way. It was under review for almost 7 months and the AE failed to secure two referees. The report we received by a single referee had criticisms that were either scientifically wrong or referred to typos that could easily be fixed. The AE was also obviously not following even the broader topic elaborated in the paper. The problem with the process of the journal is not the rejection per se. Many journals might reject a paper even if nothing is technically wrong with it. It is simply disrespectful to have a paper for 7 months and not even manage to provide feedback from two reviewers. After the first 5 months or so I had to bother them with emails every now and then, only to get answers of the type that “the AE is working hard to secure a second referee”. That info was first sent to me on Feb 23rd, 2023 while the paper was submitted on Sept 5th, 2022. The paper got rejected on the 20th of March, 2023.
Immediately accepted after 5.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editor did not chose two of the three reviewers well: from the comments, one of them likely was a reviewer that I had asked to be excluded due to conflict of interest, and the second did not know even the basics of the field of research.
Motivation:
3 months for a first review round is very long.
Motivation:
The time for finding reviewers was too long to wait.
Motivation:
"... do not feel that the perceived conceptual novelty of the manuscript warrants the broad audience Applied Materials Today serves."
The long review time (4.6 weeks) for an editorial desk rejection is disappointing.
The long review time (4.6 weeks) for an editorial desk rejection is disappointing.
Motivation:
Manuscript took over 2.5 months to be sent to review. Had to follow up several times with the Editor. They said it was a particularly bad period so maybe it's better since. One of the reviewers was pretty bad (only couple sentences, did not know method, etc)
Motivation:
For a manuscript submitted in the core subject area of the journal, the editorial board couldn't find more than one reviewer. They did not even ask for suggestions from authors for more reviewers, when they couldn't find sufficient reviewers. Extremely longer time (more than a year) for review process. Rejection reasons were not absolute and strong. As a new journal, needs more stringent review process to attract more social researchers or even interdisciplinary researchers.
Motivation:
The job of reviewers was quite good. Unfortunately, this was not the case for the editor. It took a month from the time the reviewers made the review to the time we got the feedback. Moreover, he reject the paper without giving a reasoned motivation. In fact, we wish we could respond to the reviewers.