Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This was my first experience with Optics Letters and I have nothing but good things to say. The peer review had quick turnaround, the reviewer's comments and questions were critical yet entirely fair and through answering them our letter turned out much better than it was at time of submission. Plus, OSA doesn't charge unless you'd like your figures in color print (or would like to give a donation), which is refreshing. For these reasons, I look forward to submitting work to OL again in the future.
Motivation:
The manuscript was assessed by a Senior Editor in consultation with four members of the Board of Reviewing Editors and results were found not to be of enough broad significance for the publication in eLife.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
The review comments are helpful to improve the manuscript. Also, the editor gave us a positive comments. The reviewing process was fair and constructive.
I would like to submit this journal again.
I would like to submit this journal again.
Motivation:
Long review process but high quality of feedback
Motivation:
Good time to first decision. Reasonable reviews.
Motivation:
The initial review time was far longer than what is reported as their average turn-around time on their website. The handling editor did, however, reach out to notify us of the prolonged wait time and made efforts to speed the remainder of the review process. The reviewers comments were helpful and seemed to be from peers who were indeed experts in the field-of-interest.
Motivation:
One reviewer gave me constructive advice, but the other wrote somewhat negative emotional comments on the submitted manuscript. Associate editor stated that he also read the manuscript and that the submitted ms was a recycling paper I had published before. However, I was sure that he did not read the ms nor my published paper before ,because the published year he noted was wrong and the analyses and results differed completely.
Motivation:
They took a long time to answer, but the experience was positive. After accepting the article, it was quickly published (46 days).
Motivation:
I felt it was particularly important to post this review because the only other review on this site claims the process took 6 months between each stage of the process. This was not our experience. The time it took to receive these results was comparable to most other journals in our field, about 2.5 months from submission to initial decision. We received highly thorough and fair feedback from the reviewers and the editors that will be useful in considering how to revise the manuscript for other venues.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A large-scale identification of direct RNA targets and protein partners of RNA editing factor SlORRM4 uncovers its role in tomato fruit ripening" to The Plant Cell. Your submission has been evaluated by members of the editorial board, and we regret to inform you that we are not recommending that your manuscript proceed further in the review process. We have not made this decision lightly. Your submission was assessed at this stage by 3 editorial board members, who judged that the work would not be appropriate for The Plant Cell and that initiating additional review would only delay the eventual publication of your story. This decision reflects the priorities and platform of The Plant Cell and is not meant to indicate that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively fast. The editor provided us with a reasonable explanation for the rejection. We got transferred to other journals and could use the feedback from the reviews to improve our paper.
Motivation:
Every stage of the review process was very professional and author-friendly. The perfect rating is to highlight the excellent choice of anonymous referee by the editor. The referee was extremely diligent, as obvious by the in-depth and to the point comments and suggestions. This was by far the best referee report I have ever received in comparison to other journals in the field and it greatly improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
I have no complaints about this Journal.
Motivation:
Their response was apt and very professional
Motivation:
The review process was very fast even under the situation of COVID-19. The comments from an editor and reviewers were reasonable, which contributed to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
great website
Motivation:
One of the reviewers provided an extremely long list of comments, which I was initially overwhelmed with. But it eventually helped me improve the paper. The other reviewers had only very minor points. Although my revision was sent to the reviewers again, the editor was very efficient and helpful.
Motivation:
In literature, there is a very simple method for estimating the genetic correlation matrix. Due to its simplicity, this method is relatively often used. However it has some undesired numerical problems. We submitted a note (not a full paper) showing how to solve these problems. The second reviewer seems not to have read the manuscript in detail, since he made several statements on the manuscript which were very wrong. The editor proposed that we should compare the method to ASReml and resubmit as a new submission if our methods is better than the latter.
Our idea of this note was not to outperform a commercial software. In case a heuristic method which can be calculated with pen and paper would beat a commercial software, we would not submit this as a note, but as a full paper, and probably not to this journal...
Our idea of this note was not to outperform a commercial software. In case a heuristic method which can be calculated with pen and paper would beat a commercial software, we would not submit this as a note, but as a full paper, and probably not to this journal...
Motivation:
fantastic experience. very transparent and efficient editorial process with fair reviews
Motivation:
The review process was quite long. Reviewer #2 improved the quality of the manuscript, making interesting comments, highlighting typing errors and suggesting a better organization of the text. On the contrary, Reviewer #1 did not add useful comments and argued that English language should be improved. It was funny to notice that Reviewer #2 placed at least 5 English language mistakes in its review made of 185 words.
Motivation:
Extremely slow, but they said one of the reviewers was late. Acceptance email said 8-10 months publication queue, so it won't be out soon.
Motivation:
Both reviewers seemed to have taken their role seriously. They gave detailed feedback. I interpret the circumstance that the journal found good reviewers as an indicator of a good reputation.
Motivation:
The second round of revisions occurred during COVID-19, therefore there were delays in getting the information back. Despite the Editors external obligations, the review and decision arrived within a reasonable timeframe all things considered.