Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It appears the editor may have only skimmed the introduction, as some points raised were explicitly addressed in the paper. The critique felt unclear and resembled a standard response.
Motivation:
Generic rejection without information after more than a month.
Motivation:
The manuscript was desk rejected after almost one month, with no explanation or feedback... Very disappointing experience
Motivation:
Our paper turned into 'under review' soon after submission. But it turned out to be only within editorial board and rejected after about 5 weeks.
Motivation:
After submission, the portal indicated no activity for almost three weeks. I then contacted the editorial office requesting an update. They acknowledged the delay, and said that they were trying to get a decision soon. The desk rejection came a day later.
Motivation:
Avoid! Appalling journal, rude editor, incoherent and non-sensical reasons given for not reviewing the paper. Bunch of amateurs.
Motivation:
Swift response from the editor, with a desk rejection. Reason for rejection and suggestions for submitting to a different journal were given.
Motivation:
That's the editor's comment: "Because your manuscript failed to pass one or more of the initial screening criteria."
Motivation:
I think the response is weird, cause I am totally sure that my work fits perfectly the scope of the journal, as I work on medical images. Furthermore, the status of the paper changed to decision in the process in the same day of the submission, which concludes that the paper wasn't sent for an internal review.
Motivation:
The journal has a quick response, but remains doubtful in the selection process, does the editor really check the submitted paper or takes the decision directly from the title ?
Motivation:
It took very long for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
Excellent internal review, was helpful.
Motivation:
32 days for a desk-rejection is too much for a journal of this caliber.
Motivation:
Didn't address the correct (corresponding) author. No appreciation of the article nor reason for rejection. Not signed by editor.
Motivation:
The editor identified insufficient engagement with the literature published in their journal as a major reason for rejection.
Motivation:
The review process at Phytomedicine is frustrating and unprofessional. The only feedback one typically receives is a brief statement that the article does not fit the aim and scope of the journal. This lack of transparency and constructive criticism wastes valuable time for researchers. Rather than providing specific guidance or engaging with the content of the submission, the journal dismisses articles with little explanation. Given this, I would not recommend wasting your time on Phytomedicine. There are far more professional and responsive journals to consider.
Motivation:
The majority of the similarity arises from the appendix section, which includes standardized survey questions commonly used in prior studies.
Motivation:
Fast desk rejection, no reason provided.
Motivation:
brief and unsubstantiated explanations, it seems they have not even read the article
Motivation:
Rejection letter was a “standard” mail saying that us not “in the high priority of the journal”. No input from the editor was provided.
Motivation:
The paper was submitted to a special issue and was perfectly tailored to it. However, the rejection letter did not come from the SI Guest Editors. Instead, it was a generic statement indicating that "As there is a high volume of high-quality manuscripts submitted to International Journal of Qualitative Methods, we must often turn away papers that might be publishable but which we do not have sufficient space for, or which fall outside the journal’s scope." So, it appeared as if the submission did not reach the SI Guest Editors before it was rejected.
Motivation:
Got a custom rejection letter stating the underlying molecular mechanism lacking for publication at Immunity with the proposal to transfer to Cell Reports.
Motivation:
Approximately two months for a desk rejection is unacceptable.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The paper submitted dealt with the environmental impact of a specific transport policy. Desktop rejecting the paper as out of scope seems very odd.
Motivation:
Article not sent for peer review for subjective reasons.
Motivation:
desk rejected
Motivation:
They suggested the direct transfer to a sister journal.
Motivation:
Smooth review process and friendly editors with good advice on where to submit our paper - which was not fit for the journal and they clearly and nicely explained why.
Motivation:
Long time for a desk reject.
Motivation:
My proposal has been reviewed by topic experts. Unfortunately, their topic experts have decided that they are not able to pursue my paper further at this time.
Motivation:
Desk rejected by the Editor. No reason provided. Transfer to Chem. Eur. J. was offered. However, the review process at that venue was terrible (previously reviewed). Overall, experience with these two Wiley publications has been terrible in recent years.
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected in less than 24 hours by a "Topic Editor". Transfer to another ACS journal was offered, which was not acceptable. Enquiry about the reason for the rejection, led the Editor to seek the opinion of another Associate Editor who (obviously) concurred. Not a positive experience by any measure.
Motivation:
The comments were accurate, and the editorial board provided advice and transfer to more fitting journals.
Motivation:
On the one hand, a bit slow for a desk rejection, but then again, they seem to have read the paper at the editorial office and didn't reject the abstract as seems to be the case with other journals. Thoughtful recommendations.
Motivation:
Too long review process. Editor did not reply to my emails. The worst experience I have ever had with a journal.
Motivation:
Short feedback, but clearly from an editor who read the paper carefully.