Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rather fast & useful suggestions by the reviewers, convenient interactive review forum
Motivation:
Two months for a desk reject without any reason stated I find completely unacceptable for a public health journal.
Motivation:
Quality of the reviews was really mixed, journal was bizarrely fixated on following their formatting guidelines.
Motivation:
The only problem is they do not update you on the status of your manuscript for the moment you submit it, it just stayed at "under consideration", which made us feel that it was still under editorial review. Being a prestigious journal, we thought it needed more time for the editor to make the decision to send it out to reviewers, for all that we know after close to 3 weeks, we received the reviewers' comment, then did we realize it has passed editorial review. Overall, they are very fast for my case, 3 weeks for the first review, was given 10 days to complete the first revision and the second revision came in 14 days time. After that, the editor mentioned that it was just a minor revision and if we addressed it, he will give us a final decision as soon as possible. Almost immediately when after submitting our minor revision, the editor came back within one working day to accept our paper for post-production. Kudos!
Motivation:
We were offered a transfer option to a suitable journal, but it took over a week for a desk rejection, which is a pretty long time in my experience.
Motivation:
Two months for a desk reject without any comment on the manuscript I find completely unacceptable.
Motivation:
Fast review process if you revise the manuscript according to reviewer reports. The only problem is the delay of the manuscript in going for a review. submitted 03 April 2019; accepted 01 August 2019,
Motivation:
I received a swift and polite email containing a rejection pointing to the large volume of submissions to the journal. The editor also made a suggestion for an alternative jounal that might be a better fit.
Motivation:
Unless you are a 'big shot' group leader, don't bother submitting here. We presented novel and multidisciplinary work on a high-impact topic with very in-depth content. The paper was not assigned to the editor of our choice who we selected based on previous experience of handling manuscripts in the field. Instead, the paper was assigned to new editor with very poor scientific background and marginaly relevant expertise so it seemed from the get-go that our paper is going to serve as his training material rather. The paper was returned in a week without anything but a form letter and recommendation to resubmit to Science Advances for which we had stated clearly that we had no interest in. So the whole process seemed pre-set to forward high-quality work to boost the impact of their mediocre daughter journal rather than give us a chance to an objective peer review. Multiple inquiries to the editor about more specific feedback were stonewalled and in 6 exchanged e-mails there was not a single indication that the editor had even read the manuscript. Given that the submission had extensive supporting data on top of their typical format, I doubt that that was done as the actual time of 'under editorial consideration' status was actually extremely brief.
Motivation:
The editor was quick to find reviewers with expertise in my field. The reviewers were overall professional and actually fair with their review. Although they recommended rejection on methodological grounds, their feedback improved my manuscript.
Motivation:
The direct rejection was quite fast (3 days) but I wonder if the EB really paid attention to my manuscript in such a short period of time especially since I submitted a Friday afternoon and got the rejection email the next Monday early in the morning.
Motivation:
Timely forwarding of reviewer comments much appreciated, even if outcome was disappointing.
Motivation:
This work was initially submitted to JACS and then to Chem Sci. In both cases, it was subjected to desk rejection. In the former, with a poor assessment by the Associate Editor and in the latter, the academic Editor did not bother to respond to a rebuttal. By contrast, Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis gave the work a fair assessment. The review process was robust, it was initially assessed by 4 reviewers (3 recommended minor revision and 1 recommended major revision). Due to the time needed for the revisions, the manuscript was withdrawn, revised, and resubmitted. A single review of the revised version was received and the work was published smoothly. As we suspected this work seems to have garnered quite a bit of attention, landing it in the top 10% of most downloaded articles in the Jan 2018-Dec 2019 time range. Overall, a reasonably satisfying experience. The one matter the Editors may wish to consider is the onerous job of formatting the manuscript in a template. I think they should request this once the manuscript is accepted (this becomes a major time consumption if the manuscript faces rejection from another venue as was the case here).
Motivation:
manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process
Motivation:
This manuscript was reviewed by three referees, all of whom were positive and provided constructive criticism. Both rounds may have taken a little longer time than normal, but coincided with the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Motivation:
They have been quick, very polite, clear in explaining the process and the decision. Reports were useful (2 out of 4).
Motivation:
The paper was rejected with a comment from an editor, "There is no novelty".
Motivation:
The report I received was very positive and technical and the review process take a good time.
Motivation:
The reivewer pointed out some minor problems in the manuscript, which were extremely easy to fix and I did it in a few hours. Although the report was overall very good, the recommendation to rejection was too strong basead on the comments I received from the reviewer.
Motivation:
The current work seems to fall somewhat short of the broad advance beyond the published literature to be a strong candidate for the journal.
Motivation:
The review process was fast, professional, and the editor guided us of what experiments were the most important to be addressed by the reviewers. I reached out couple of time to the journal and the response was quick and very helpful. I seriously think it is one of my best experience dealing with a journal with a research manuscript.