Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
IEEE UFFC is technical, and legitimately so. However, if something happens to be genuinely simple, should it be automatically excluded?
Motivation:
Altogether, the handling of the manuscript has been rapid and efficient. One of the two reviewers screened the manuscript in very best practice, evaluated chapter by chapter even for complex mathematical content, gave inspired positive feedback and provided helpful comments with regard to the existing content. The second reviewer obviously did not deal with the scientific methods and results of the manuscript in detail (if at all). Finding his own opinion contradicted in the results and discussion chapter, this reviewer requested explanation for questions which were out-of-scope of the manuscript. After three months of additional intensive research we provided detailed explanations in a substantially enlarged revision. The editorial board rejected our revised submission, arguing that one referee had recommended against publication. The first referee did not have any further objections. The reasons given by the second referee were demonstrably counterfactual and completely unrelated to the explanations and changes requested in the first review. It is questionable whether the editors had carefully judged the referees' work, as they had weighted the superficial review higher than the accurate one.
Motivation:
I have appealed and pointed out that
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.
1. Our MS had NOT been published, or was being reviewed, in any peer reviewed journal. It was simply deposited on the preprint BioRXIV server. Please see https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv
2. That the use of pre-print servers is not uncommon, and is accepted by most journals, including those from Wiley https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html . Indeed, we have never had any problems with the use of pre-print server before and assume that the decision to reject our MS without reviewing on the grounds that it overlaps with an existing MS must have been a misunderstanding.
3. Despite 3 emails , there is no answer from the Editor. To have a MS rejected without review on the grounds that it overlaps with our own pre-print is preposterous and deeply unfair.
Motivation:
The managing editor is nice and communicable. The reviewers' comments are insightful and positive. It is a good spot to share your research related to patient care in the medical arena.
Motivation:
The reviewers had appreciated our work and had a few queries. It did not take much effort to address those queries.
Motivation:
First, it took 2 months to find an Editor, and the process only begun after inquiries from the author. Then they said they did not find suitable reviewers, but only after another inquiry from my side. Lastly, they rejected without any real, substantial review, which could have been done by the editor in the first place before sending it out for review.
Motivation:
The editors are quite helpful. The feedback were quite useful. Authors should be aware, however, journals under Emerald (including Library Hi-Tech) are having and editorial office which would ask you to handle many minor issues on your own (which will be handled by the editorial office of other publishers).
Motivation:
the journal is very good and takes less time for review.
Motivation:
Seemingly arbitrary decision, not substantiated by any reason, and contrary to reviewers comments
I regret to inform you that reviewers have advised against publishing your manuscript, and we must therefore reject it. Please refer to the comments listed at the end of this letter for details of why I reached this decision.
But see here:
Overall comments: Worthy of publication with minor revisions and added information.
I regret to inform you that reviewers have advised against publishing your manuscript, and we must therefore reject it. Please refer to the comments listed at the end of this letter for details of why I reached this decision.
But see here:
Overall comments: Worthy of publication with minor revisions and added information.
Motivation:
The "Initial Quality Control" usually takes 4-5 days, which is quite slow. Then the EIC gives a rapid rejection decision (1 day later) without external review for considering novelty. Why not EIC directly give a decision? I guess the "Initial Quality Control" is just for checking the format and data policies. Why so long!..............................! Hope for an improvement!
Motivation:
The process was smooth. Just a few minor issues (when the revision was asked, they forgot to attach one report; when the paper was accepted, the process to edit the file and put it online was a bit long and not so efficient)
Motivation:
With the immediate reject, they did offer to transfer the paper to ChemistrySelect or ChemistryOpen. The publication fee for ChemistryOpen was discounted by 20% in the offer; however it is still steep at 1440 Euros.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for review almost immediately after submission (the journal notified me it was in review the day after submission). I received a response from editor, with two reviews, indicating ms required modification three weeks later. After making the suggested revisions, ms was accepted the same day I submitted the revisions. A very straightforward and efficient process.
Motivation:
Fast, efficient handling. Even three reviewers have been chosen by the editor, but the majority of reviewers obviously lacked sufficient biomechanical background to process and judge the manuscript.
Motivation:
Editor blindly followed the instructions of the second reviewer who made too generic comments on the quality of paper, while the first one found it ready to be published. The review of the second reviewer was not justified. I think that a third reviewer should have been called to evaluate the paper
Motivation:
The reviewer pointed out necessary changes to make my data more interpretable.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to Genome Research via BioRxiv and it was sent to review about a week later. We didn't get our reviewer's reports back until nearly 4 months of time had passed! The reviewers were all very pleased with the paper and only requested some additional bioinformatics analysis and clarifications. We turned around our revised paper in a few weeks and it still took them another two months to accept the paper. Really pleased with the outcome, but with the lengthy review process, I'd be reluctant to submit to Genome Research in the future.
Motivation:
I had three reviewers; two of them were highly positive, and one was more negative. The very negative comments from the third reviewer were more personal rather scientific-based. The manuscript improved significantly because of the reviewers who made reasonable questions and made me improve the final presentation of my work.
Motivation:
The feedback from the reviewers really improved the quality of the paper.