Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
There was a lot of formatting that was done but little that had to do with the content.
Motivation:
Not interesting enough.
Motivation:
The editor sent a mocky review stating that the paper does not deals with managements and should be submitted to an economics journal. Obviously, they did not read the paper. There are still authors publishing some five papers per year which indicates this journal is not fair in reviewing.
Motivation:
I received a very positive, good and timely report.
Motivation:
Reviewers sent positive reviews and suggestions for minor revisions, editor allowed some discretion with these revisions, we added some citations and added text to the discussion. Almost immediately afterwards, the editor recommended the manuscript be accepted without sending it back out into review.
Motivation:
Very fast handling and outstanding managing editor, quality of reviews a bit meh.
Motivation:
While it took a rather long time for the first decision this appears to be due to the review of the first referee. This reviewer decided that this paper was too similar to some of our previous work and therefore did not merit publication in this journal. Although the topics were similar, the work and subsequent results were markedly different and this was agreed by both reviewer 2 and reviewer 3 who was brought in to decide on the manuscript. Some of reviewer 1's comments regarding the format of the article and figures indicated a lack of knowledge regarding the structure required for submission to this journal
Motivation:
The reviewer made a great review job, calling my attention to some wrong or weak points in my work. I do not evaluate the process as 5 because the points that the reviewer called my attention were moderately easy to ammend and I belive that it was case of major revision, but not rejection. A point supporting my view is that after some time I corrected my manuscript, submitted it again to the same journal and I wrote a cover letter saying that the paper had already been submitted there, I corrected it and I listed all changes I had made in the work. Then it was accepted by the same editor who had rejected it.
Motivation:
Although the review process was rather quick (it took only a month to receive feedback), it seems that I only got comments from one reviewer. The comments were shallow and not very precise.
Motivation:
I found reviewers' comments logical to be addressed before publishing it to ACS Chemistry of Materials.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected even though the comments by the reviewers could have been addressed. This has happened to many submissions to this journal. However, as I acted as a reviewer, I noticed that revise decision was made even in the presence of critical reports.
Motivation:
My short paper was quickly reviewed and accepted. The reports were reasonable.
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously written by a same person and contained shallow notes like insufficient conclusions/literature review/figure quality. Some more specific comments were not relevant at all. By the way, reviews were written in awkward English. The reviews were just several sentences long. In general, I consider this as a scam which repeated during several submissions.
Motivation:
The Editor didn't seem to care much about the manuscript although the journal itself has been known for publishing strong papers in related areas so I am really puzzled by this attitude. On the pros: there is a good TeX template and the Editorial staff seem to be responsive, plus the status tracking system is fairly transparent. On the downside: they couldn't find suitable reviewers fast enough so they asked me to provide a list of potential reviewers, which I did twice. After about ~2 months of waiting, they found two reviewers. At the end of the first round of reviews, one of the reviewer found the paper to be excellent while the other one didn't read past the first half and stated he wasn't happy at all, not even giving any detailed criticism to the points made in the paper. So after a mild revision which mainly concerned re-working the introduction and conclusions, the manuscript was sent back for reviews. After about 1.5 months, the Editor got back saying the Reviewer recommended to change the title. SInce this change wasn't really necessary at that time, I thought what the reviewer really wanted was an explanation to a few words in the title, so I modified the Introduction to clarify this. The manuscript has then been sent back to the Reviewers again, and the final round took about 35 days. The Reviewer then proposed another change of title which seemed to make more sense, which I did. Finally, after a few days the manuscript was accepted.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The submission process was very easy and the decision was quite rapid (<1 week).
Motivation:
The editor provided a separate explanation of the rejection. It was by and large well justified. The fit of the article with the journal was not perfect. So, it is disappointing not to get "major revisions" but I get it.
Motivation:
The mentioned rejection time of 3 days on their website however, it took about 13 days to reject without peer review. And, recommended transfer of the manuscript to a much low, new journal of the system which clearly means they want to uplift their new journals at te cost quality work by others.
Motivation:
The review process was incredibly slow. Three months after we submitted we asked the editor for an update, and it took four more months to get an extremely short 'minor revisions' review (it was so short and trivial they could have just accepted it conditional on us making a few word changes). Then despite multiple follow-ups from us, it took a year and a half after submitting the minor revisions for it to be accepted. They mentioned the journal was going through transitions, but since the revisions were trivial (not even needing the reviewer to look at them again) we didn't understand the delay.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Both the reviewers said the paper has limited novelty without going into the technicality of the paper. I'm totally unsatisfied with the comments
Motivation:
No reviews from any reviewer were received. In the comment section, only "Minor Contribution" words were mentioned.