All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: I recently had an extremely disappointing experience with the Tribology International Journal that compelled me to express my concerns regarding its publication practices. It is disheartening to state that this journal appears to be exhibiting clear biases and promoting a racially discriminatory environment.

One of the most glaring issues I noticed when examining the recent publications in the journal is the overwhelming dominance of papers originating from China or authored by individuals of Chinese origin. It is alarming to discover that more than 95% of the articles fall into this category, raising questions about the journal's commitment to impartiality and inclusivity. A balanced representation of research contributions from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds is essential for maintaining the integrity of any scientific journal.

To add to my dismay, when I submitted my own paper to the Tribology International Journal, it was promptly rejected with the vague justification that it was not suitable for their publication. However, what baffled me the most was that the very same article was accepted and recognized as one of the best in another highly reputed tribology journal. This stark discrepancy in evaluation raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the review process employed by Tribology International Journal.

Further examination of the editorial board of the journal revealed that a significant number of the editors also have Chinese origins. While it is important to note that diverse perspectives and expertise should be valued and encouraged, it becomes problematic when such a disproportionate representation compromises the integrity and objectivity of the journal's decision-making process.

Considering the circumstances and my personal experience, I regret to say that I will not be submitting any future articles to the Tribology International Journal. It is crucial for researchers to seek publication avenues that uphold rigorous standards of fairness, equality, and inclusivity. As scientists, we rely on scholarly journals to provide a platform for unbiased dissemination of knowledge, and it is disheartening to witness instances where this ideal is not upheld.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the editorial board of the Tribology International Journal to reflect on the concerns raised here and take steps to rectify any biases or discriminatory practices that may be undermining the journal's reputation. It is essential for the scientific community to promote a diverse and inclusive environment that values contributions from researchers of all backgrounds, ensuring that scientific progress is not hindered by prejudice or favoritism.

Disclaimer: This review reflects the personal experience and opinion of the reviewer and does not intend to make any generalizations about the entire journal or its editorial board.

Motivation: If it is out of Scope, they must reject from 1-30 days. After peer review process, scope out of journal is not meaningful. That too after 24 months

Motivation: Editor's comment: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."

Motivation: Editor suggested transfer to Nature Communications.

Motivation: A desk reject is always disappointing, but the editor very clearly read the manuscript and provided a short paragraph of feedback as to why this decision was reached.

Motivation: The editor only took into account the negative comments of the reviewers and clearly did not read the work in order to analyse them properly. It is fair to say, on the other hand, that the process was fast.

Motivation: tl;dr: We could have saved so much time if one of the reviewers gave all of their suggestions in a single round.

The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.

The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.

Motivation: Two editors reviewed the research note and deemed it not fit.

Motivation: The editor took 6 months to decide whether to send the article for external peer review. Six months after receiving the article, he sent it to a reviewer, after we had written to him twice asking for a decision (even though the editor would decide to reject the article without a review, we would prefer this to delaying the process, as his delay in responding was hindering our intention to send the article to another journal). Once the article was sent to an external reviewer, the first review was completed in 18 days. However, the process stalled. A second reviewer was not sought, nor was the decision communicated to the authors. Finally, the editor sent us a rejection decision after we had written to him again asking if what we were experiencing was considered a normal pace.
Our complaint is not about the decision. Of course we respect the decision of the reviewers. Our complaint is about the lack of ethics on the part of the editor who, in particular, delayed the review process and, in the meantime, prevented us from submitting the article to a new journal. This is something that has never happened to us before.

Motivation: I've had faster desk rejections.

Motivation: A desk reject, but with three lines of thoughtful feedback from the editor and a recommendation for a different journal.

Motivation: Quick rejection with a generic reason that the editor claimed cannot be fixed but did not provide much specifics.

Motivation: The justifications for rejection are poor. One of the comments was: "The sentence should be changed to: "Quantifying pain pressure threshold provides the clinician…" that is not a problem that justifies the rejection of a paper.

Motivation: I deeply suspect the editor-in-chief has a group of deeply connected people holding academic positions in India, and screens with bias.

Motivation: The reviewers' comments were helpful to improve my manuscript.

Motivation: In terms of time, Tourism Review and the Editor conduct reviews in a timely manner. However, the quality of the reviews were not good, suggesting a lack of knowledge in the topic.

Motivation: Manuscript was sent to reviewers, who did not seem to assess the manuscript in depth. There were factual mistakes in one review and the other review completely ignored large chunks of the manuscript. I was advised by colleagues against submitting to this journal and the prediction was the rejection will cause the editor to suggest a lower journals, which is exactly what happened. Not sure I want to try this venue again.