Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
This is for a review paper and thus I expected a thorough and critival peer review process. However, I found that the discussion with one reviewer turned more and more towards opinion discussion than facts. I feel it would have been the editors job to intervene or position himself.
Motivation:
The Physical Review series of journal has often undergone criticism for lengthy review processes which PRX was supposed to ostensibly mitigate. Unfortunately, given the time it takes for an internal review for this particular manuscript, I can hardly recommend PRX if timely response is one of your priorities.
Motivation:
I had an excellent experience submitting my manuscript with JMIR Medical Informatics. I received valuable feedback from editors that strengthen my manuscript. As well, the review process was very simple and straight forward. JMIR author guidelines for submission are very clear and I was never confused during the review process. I will definitely recommend this journal to my colleagues and plan to publish with JMIR again in the future.
Motivation:
I had an excellent review process- the comments from the reviewers were fair and improved my paper to a large extent. The editor was also very clear and generous with the R&R dates, giving me ample opportunity to respond and make the necessary changes.
The process from acceptance to publication was also great, allowing me to edit and amend the text whilst proofing and typesetting.
The process from acceptance to publication was also great, allowing me to edit and amend the text whilst proofing and typesetting.
Motivation:
In the first round of reviews, I felt that the reviewers and editor put quite a bit of effort into providing really thorough reviews and I feel that my revisions, which required reanalyzing data, did improve the paper, but then they rejected it for lack of novelty. I just feel that if that is what they are going to judge a manuscript on, they should not invite a resubmit - that was irresponsible.
Motivation:
It took 14 weeks for the editor to determine it was not a good fit. We requested updates several times through the review process and were ultimately told 12 weeks into the process that the editor had stopped responding to emails. Completely unprofessional management.
Motivation:
The reviews quality is good but the review process takes too long.
Motivation:
Editor mentioned that he tried 8 reviewers but none of them agrees to review the manuscript. He think that the manuscript does not project a sense of importance that could warrant publication in PLA.
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Manuscript was submitted for a month before editor came back with questions. We addressed them and resubmitted, then it went out for review, the review process took about a month and a half. The reviewer comments were easy to address and the manuscript was resubmitted quickly. The manuscript was then accepted pending minor revisions requested by the editor, which were addressed the same day. The manuscript was officially accepted days later. The whole process took less than 4 months.
Motivation:
Honestly, we believed that our contribution would be a good fit for Nature Communications. During our work, we have found several papers that had "similar" contribution and impact. Anyway, we accepted the suggestion of transferring the manuscript for Scientific Reports, and afterward, they ended up accepting it.
Motivation:
Two reviewers suggested some minor changes before acceptance. Third reviewer feels that manuscript shows new results but suitable for more specific optical journal. After revision manuscript was accepted.
Motivation:
Unclear if the manuscript was sent out for external review - we received an email with a paragraph each of feedback from two 'Associate Editors', informing us that our paper failed to adequately engage with the journal's core debates. While we appreciated the speed in which the manuscript was processed, this is disappointingly slow if (as we suspect) the manuscript wasn't actually sent out for review.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 84.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I decided to withdraw my manuscript after the editor couldn't find reviewers for more than two and a half months
Motivation:
After more than 90 days, we received the response of the journal regarding our article. However, it was rather strange. On the website, I saw that it was "Under Review"; however, when we finally got feedback from the journal, which declared that our article was rejected, no comments from reviewers were provided.
The Editor said, and I quote: "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it." There were no reviewer's comments in the e-mail or the submission system. I tried to contact the Editor, asking for the comments, but I never got a response. In my understanding, the article was never reviewed by anyone because I never saw the comments, and they should have been provided.
I must highlight that I only received this declaration after more than 90 days, and only after I contacted the journal, asking about long it was taking for an initial assessment.
It was not the first time I've waited more than 80 days for Functional & Integrative Genomics to give me an initial assessment on an article.
The Editor said, and I quote: "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it." There were no reviewer's comments in the e-mail or the submission system. I tried to contact the Editor, asking for the comments, but I never got a response. In my understanding, the article was never reviewed by anyone because I never saw the comments, and they should have been provided.
I must highlight that I only received this declaration after more than 90 days, and only after I contacted the journal, asking about long it was taking for an initial assessment.
It was not the first time I've waited more than 80 days for Functional & Integrative Genomics to give me an initial assessment on an article.
Motivation:
Reviewer feels that the calculation was useful but not exactly matches the experimental results. He also feels that the physical interpretation of experimental and calculated results should be described in more detail.
Motivation:
Three months after I submitted the article, I emailed the editor. They said they had trouble finding the reviewers. As a result of 9 months, I received two peer reviews and the result is reject. I'm very upset because one of the review was 3 sentences. The other reviewer's opinion is whether the article was suitable for the journal. I think this should be the editor's decision. This reviewer offered me another journal. I don't think the referee process is going well.
Motivation:
The reviews were reasonably extensive. The editors explained their decision. Although as authors we could argue with the reviewers, the journal's process felt fair.
Motivation:
Very fast handling overall, despite two thorough rounds of reviews (which helped to improve the manuscript considerably). Always a pleasant communication with different members of the editorial office.