All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Very quick rejection

Motivation: The editor wrote that "they accept only papers that are scientifically sound, important to the field, and contain significant new results in physics. We judge that these acceptance criteria are not met by your manuscript". I am sure that he did not see the paper carefully and did not understand the novelty of our work.
Our work was soon accepted in other peer-reviewd journal and was significantly cited after publication. More surprisingly, the work based on our model was recently published in Physical Review A. So I did not understand that why our work was not significant and how similar kind of work was publishable in PRA later?

Motivation: Although it was rejection but reviewers understood the work and provides the limitations and proper reason (after in-depth review) that why the work was not suitable for publication in Scientific Reports.

Motivation: I always rate Optics Communications a very good journal. The editor and reviewers are quite professional, always fair and they judge the work on the basis of its quality and provide constructive comments. Our experience with this manuscript was quite good.

Motivation: No complaints. The entire process up to standard.

Motivation: Received one constructive review, from a reviewer who had clearly engaged deeply with the topic of the manuscript and pointed out that with "little work" the paper could be much improved. The second reviewer, however, appeared to dismiss the paper entirely because they disagreed with my methodological approach (ethnographic and interview data), instead insisting that valid data would have been transcripts of recorded natural conversation. Ultimately, the Associate Editor adjudicated and ruled in favour of rejection.

Motivation: Reviews were of outstanding quality and definitely improved the manuscript. However, editorial decisions were very slow, each decision taking 31 to 42 days to arrive (counting only days in which the manuscript was in the editors' hand, not in reviewers').

Motivation: The reviews are good, but the review process took too long. After a third roud of reviews, the reviewer took 16 weeks to give the acceptance.

Motivation: Very speedy response, though this was for an unsolicited commentary piece rather than a research paper which may have been easier to reach a decision on quickly. Excellent and thoughtful review received which was clearly from a subject expert.

Motivation: There was a relatively long delay in receiving the peer review and editorial decision but this was acknowledged and apologised for by the editors. Despite the lengthy time between submission and rejection it did at least go to a reviewer and the comments were very fair and clearly from a topic expert.

Motivation: Very quick rejection from editorial team due to lack of space, helpful to allow us to resubmit quickly to another journal.

Motivation: It took two months to receive a standard desk rejection, which is disappointing on its own. The lack of feedback or rationale for rejection is even worse. However, the worst part was we had new data that strengthened the story and we contacted editorial office in order to try to update the manuscript. However, there was no reply from the staff and the manuscript tracking system has no apparent way to withdraw manuscripts under consideration. This whole process with Science (~ 1 month until a standard desk reject) and then two months with Science Advances has been very frustrating. In the future, I will definitely not be transferring manuscripts from Science to Science Advances.