Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It was a great experience - editorial handling and review time was extremely fast, reviews were useful and reasonable, and we had the paper online within about 3 months of initial submission!
Motivation:
After 3 months of no contact, I got feedback from 1 reviewer that was only 4 sentences that simply restated what was in the manuscript abstract. Apparently the other reviewer's comments had been admitted. The review was shallow and the editors gave a stock explanation for rejection saying: "Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication."
Motivation:
Quick, shallow rejection from the editors
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected 3 months after the submission. Both reviewers agreed that the manuscript was not within the scope of the Journal of College Student Development. I respect that, but determining the suitability of a manuscript and whether it falls within the scope of a journal is the responsibility of the editorial office. Also, the determining the suitability does not usually take more than a couple weeks (compared to 3 months).
Motivation:
Fast review process. The quality of the reviews was somewhat lower than expected, otherwise a positive overall experience.
Motivation:
Fast review process. One very positive reviewer, one rather negative reviewer. The editor(s) allowed their own interpretation of the article to determine the outcome. Quality of the reviews was rather high.
Motivation:
Very fast desk reject. Puzzing reason for desk reject.
Motivation:
Fast review process. While the quality of the reviews was high and have contributed to a better article in the end, I don't think the tone of the reviewers merited a reject. The only negative aspect of the review process was thus the rather subjective decision made by the editor to reject, despite reviewers suggesting revise and resubmit.
Motivation:
The delay, ~1 month, for rejection was disappointingly long.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took three months which is longer than I expected; the second round was carried out in one month which is reasonable in my opinion. The reviews were detailed and helped to improve the manuscript. Overall, I was happy with the process.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Manuscript Title" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very low quality and superficial referee comments, which clearly exposed that the referees did not bother to thoroughly read the paper, let alone try to understand it. Comments provided no indication of how the paper could be developed in order to make it publishable. Out of the nine (positive and negative) reviews I have received thus far, this one was clearly and by far the least helpful one. A desk reject in this case would have been better and would have safed me several months time.
Motivation:
All the reviewers had very important comments and we addressed all of them in the revised version. I also learned a lot while writing the revised version. It was a great experience.
Motivation:
The reviews consisted each of two lines without going into the argument we were trying to make or its substantiation or merits. The only feedback I got from the editor was that the manuscript was 'not suitable. '
Another problem was that they did not respond to emails I sent after I did not hear from them. Only after about 15 months did they respond, and that was with this minimal rejection.
Another problem was that they did not respond to emails I sent after I did not hear from them. Only after about 15 months did they respond, and that was with this minimal rejection.
Motivation:
We sympathise with the editors I am sure it was difficult changing a reviewer after 2 rounds of review. However after 2 rounds the reviews were 1 accept and 1 very minor before he/she pulled out. The two additional rounds of reviews from the new reviewer asked for the paper to revert to original format, undoing a great deal of effort from all concerned. Editor has refused to publish without addressing all the new reviewers comments which goes against the other reviewer (who had accepted). I suggest you publish anywhere else.
Motivation:
The reviewers were serious and knowledgeable of their disciplines. Even though they clearly indicated that they liked the topic, they were persistent in trying to help us improve the paper quality of the paper. After the three revisions, the quality of our paper has improved substantially.
Motivation:
We proposed the manuscript to the journal (since it is normally by invitation only). Our proposal was swiftly accepted.
The review process was quick and reasonable. One reviewer seemed to have been selected from our list of proposals, another seemed totally unconnected. The quality of reviews was not outstanding, but decent.
The editors were friendly and encouraging, as well as competent in the field. The whole process was very speedy and we were satisfied with the result. Submission to final decision took about 3 months.
The review process was quick and reasonable. One reviewer seemed to have been selected from our list of proposals, another seemed totally unconnected. The quality of reviews was not outstanding, but decent.
The editors were friendly and encouraging, as well as competent in the field. The whole process was very speedy and we were satisfied with the result. Submission to final decision took about 3 months.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. The process was very quick. However, i am not satisfied with the editorial changes at the end.
Motivation:
The review process was very easy and clear. The suggestions made by the reviewers were good and improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
. There was no information on the journal's website related to author's guidelines for submission
. After submission, the editor replied that the manuscript did not follow the journal's guidelines, sending a link to the journal's website where no information could be found on guidelines for submission.
. Upon writing back to the editor, the editor sends by email the submission guidelines. We had to largely reformat the manuscript before submitting again.
. Six months after the paper was accepted, the editor writes with questions that amount to a new review.
. After answering all those questions, and doing new changes on the already accepted manuscript, the editor says that the figures do not match the journal requirement (requirements that could not be found anywhere in the journal's website or in the guidelines sent by email).
. After completely reformatting all figures, the editor asks for further "cosmetic" changes in one figure. We refuse to perform those changes because the figure would not represent reality any longer. The editor accepts our explanations.
. Three months after doing the required changes and resubmitting, the paper is published online without a full reference.
. Three months after being published online without a full reference, the paper is assigned to a volume and issue within the journal and a full reference is given.
. After submission, the editor replied that the manuscript did not follow the journal's guidelines, sending a link to the journal's website where no information could be found on guidelines for submission.
. Upon writing back to the editor, the editor sends by email the submission guidelines. We had to largely reformat the manuscript before submitting again.
. Six months after the paper was accepted, the editor writes with questions that amount to a new review.
. After answering all those questions, and doing new changes on the already accepted manuscript, the editor says that the figures do not match the journal requirement (requirements that could not be found anywhere in the journal's website or in the guidelines sent by email).
. After completely reformatting all figures, the editor asks for further "cosmetic" changes in one figure. We refuse to perform those changes because the figure would not represent reality any longer. The editor accepts our explanations.
. Three months after doing the required changes and resubmitting, the paper is published online without a full reference.
. Three months after being published online without a full reference, the paper is assigned to a volume and issue within the journal and a full reference is given.
Motivation:
One Review was just "Very nice Paper!", so rather pointless. Otherwise the review process was normal.