Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This review was for a special issue, so the peer review schedule was compressed. The reviews were received within three months of the special issue deadline, which I consider timely. There were three reviews and the reviewers were obviously knowledeable about the domain. Even though the submission was rejected, the reasons for rejection were clearly motivated based on the reviewers' specific comments. Even though they recommended rejection, the reviewers gave constructive feedback that gives concrete directions for going forward. Although not the desired outcome, an overall respectable review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers were not particularly helpful (note: it might be due to sheer chance in reviewer selection this one time, and not reflecting the general quality of reviewers for this journal). The positive review was basically a single paragraph to the effect of "this is a great paper worth publishing". The negative review criticized my draft for presumably failing to address alternative theories x, y, z, all of which I had actually discussed and explicitly refuted in the draft. Luckily the editor was quite reasonable, giving me an opportunity to respond to the negative review, and accepted the draft upon relatively minor revisions.
Motivation:
We got such a reply" Unfortunately, the reviewer comments are not positive enough to support publication of the paper in Science Advances. Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication. We are therefore letting you know that we are rejecting the manuscript and hope that, nonetheless, you find the review comments helpful in preparing your work for submission to another journal". Regrettably, we found that comments are superficial, lack a lot of deep scientific understanding with bias. Therefore, we criticized that decision of rejection based on the apparent bias in the sole reviewer's comments, starting even from a wrong understating of the title to the end of his comments. The comments refer to the inexperience of the reviewer to the core of the topic. We have anxious regarding that high ranking journal with depending on only one reviewer who is not an expert on the submitted research field. We also complained from the long-editorial time, negligence of many inquire emails, un-updating the tracking system. Hereafter, the appeal rejected. We are so sad for wasting our time.
Motivation:
No technical comments were given by the worthy reviewers. They just simply say 'No novelty in your work is seen'.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Only single comment by the Reviewer-1 was given which is: "Please edit Table 2 and 3. ". However, Reviewer-2 said, "Main contributions of the paper is not clearly addressed throughout the paper".
The associate editor said, "The contribution of this work is only marginal with respect to other previously published works. " and rejected the paper.
The associate editor said, "The contribution of this work is only marginal with respect to other previously published works. " and rejected the paper.
Motivation:
Simply write: "I am afraid that the decision has been not to publish it in Electronics Letters." without reviewing it.
Motivation:
Comments from the editor is that the research topic is interesting but the research objectives of the papers need to be redeveloped. The editor advises to redevelop and resubmit the paper. We are given 6-12 months to resubmit
Motivation:
The submission was to a special issue. The guest editor commented that they have received a lot of submissions, and they can only choose the few best papers.
Motivation:
The paper was sent out to 3 external reviewers, 1 of the reviewers gave very long and detailed comments of around 15 pages. Though that particular reviewer is not familiar with my adopted methodology, but overall the reviewers are doing good jobs and try to provide feedback on how to improve my paper. Though rejected, the EIC recommend to address to the comments and resubmit
Motivation:
Good peer review and easy handling and communication by the editors. Quick publication after the point of acceptance. Seemed to take a long time before the first round of peer review was received.
Motivation:
Submitted to the 'Social Epidemiology' section of the journal. Fast response was appreciated as they did not waste much of my time.
Motivation:
The review process took quite long.
Motivation:
The reason given - Out of Scope. Despite 1/3 of the citations are from that journal.
The EIC is not interested and do not care to provide valid reasons.
The EIC is not interested and do not care to provide valid reasons.
Motivation:
The comments received from the reviewers are very helpful. Overall experience is good.
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,