Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rejected after my manuscript was held captive for over six months without reason. I was told that reviewer comments would be provided, but never came.
Motivation:
Rapid review process with good turnaround. Reviews okay but clearly not experts in all aspects of the work. Not allowed to address critiques.
Motivation:
The review time was good, and the content of the reviews made sense - although we did not agree with all the points made by reviewers.
Motivation:
They had some problems in securing reviewers (but it is probably because the paper was on a niche topic), which extended the duration of the first round of reviews. However, the reviews were indeed helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
Interesting and useful feedback from the reviewers as well as the editor
Motivation:
The first reviewer sent less than a line as a response. The second one, although a little more helpful, was rude. I understand my article would not be accepted due to the lack of quality, however, I expected more professional reviewers and editors. Moreover, I could not have an answer to my article from the Editor during the process.
Motivation:
The positive experience is, the review process only took two weeks. However, the editor wanted us to resubmit a "major revision" in just fourteen days, which is too short a period of time by any reasonable standard. More importantly, the reviewers' comments were written in poor English that was sometimes impossible to understand. Some of the comments demonstrated the fact that reviewers' didn't understand the paper. Some comments were about our English, which is a little strange given the incomprehensible way in which our reviewers themselves have rendered their comments.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
Motivation:
This is absolutely the worst handling experience I ever had during my academic career! I submitted the paper in March, after 35 days, the editor sent the paper for review. The review reports completed in two months but editor refused to give out any information regarding the status of the paper. It stayed at "ready for decision" status for 48 days!!! I sent two emails to editor and editor in chief and asked for status update. Then editor finally sent us the decision letter which includes two reviewer reports which was written in under 20 minutes by probably two undergrad/masters students. The first one was "this paper is great, it should be published" and the second one was 2 paragraph without any scientific input which suggest the results are not interesting enough!! I have no idea why editor couldn't make the final decision based on these short reviews for 48 days!!! I would not submit to this journal ever again!
6.3 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 156.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
It's definitely not a fast journal, first round took more than 2 months and the second round around 3 weeks. The reviewer comments are not really helpful and did not improved the final paper much. Overall, I think this is a slightly higher than average journal with long handling time and not-so-efficient editors.
Motivation:
Very efficient editor and reviewers! The tracking system is excellent and everything is super fast and crystal clear. The reviewer comments improved the final paper significantly.
Motivation:
The process was lengthy and some reviews appeared contradictory and unreasonable.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
Motivation:
Good editorial guidance
Motivation:
The only line written was "We have received your paper. However, it is not suitable for JMIS and should be submitted elsewhere.".
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.
Motivation:
The review was very fast and the comments were reasonable.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because it did not reference any previous work in the journal. Of course, I did search for such papers, but there were none. If the editorial board keeps rejecting future papers based on this criterion, the paper’s theme will never show up in Design Studies. In addition, such invisibility will dry out further research interest, and this will be detrimental to the entire research community.
Motivation:
Excellent review and editorial process overall. Constructive, quick and fair. Some small technical difficulties because of submitting a latex document that could have been prevented with better instructions, but eventually handled well by the office.
Motivation:
Reviews were fair and outcome was positive, but associatie editorial guidance was weak and prolonged the process unnecessarily.