Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewer made a great review job, calling my attention to some wrong or weak points in my work. I do not evaluate the process as 5 because the points that the reviewer called my attention were moderately easy to ammend and I belive that it was case of major revision, but not rejection. A point supporting my view is that after some time I corrected my manuscript, submitted it again to the same journal and I wrote a cover letter saying that the paper had already been submitted there, I corrected it and I listed all changes I had made in the work. Then it was accepted by the same editor who had rejected it.
Motivation:
Although the review process was rather quick (it took only a month to receive feedback), it seems that I only got comments from one reviewer. The comments were shallow and not very precise.
Motivation:
I found reviewers' comments logical to be addressed before publishing it to ACS Chemistry of Materials.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected even though the comments by the reviewers could have been addressed. This has happened to many submissions to this journal. However, as I acted as a reviewer, I noticed that revise decision was made even in the presence of critical reports.
Motivation:
My short paper was quickly reviewed and accepted. The reports were reasonable.
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously written by a same person and contained shallow notes like insufficient conclusions/literature review/figure quality. Some more specific comments were not relevant at all. By the way, reviews were written in awkward English. The reviews were just several sentences long. In general, I consider this as a scam which repeated during several submissions.
Motivation:
The Editor didn't seem to care much about the manuscript although the journal itself has been known for publishing strong papers in related areas so I am really puzzled by this attitude. On the pros: there is a good TeX template and the Editorial staff seem to be responsive, plus the status tracking system is fairly transparent. On the downside: they couldn't find suitable reviewers fast enough so they asked me to provide a list of potential reviewers, which I did twice. After about ~2 months of waiting, they found two reviewers. At the end of the first round of reviews, one of the reviewer found the paper to be excellent while the other one didn't read past the first half and stated he wasn't happy at all, not even giving any detailed criticism to the points made in the paper. So after a mild revision which mainly concerned re-working the introduction and conclusions, the manuscript was sent back for reviews. After about 1.5 months, the Editor got back saying the Reviewer recommended to change the title. SInce this change wasn't really necessary at that time, I thought what the reviewer really wanted was an explanation to a few words in the title, so I modified the Introduction to clarify this. The manuscript has then been sent back to the Reviewers again, and the final round took about 35 days. The Reviewer then proposed another change of title which seemed to make more sense, which I did. Finally, after a few days the manuscript was accepted.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The submission process was very easy and the decision was quite rapid (<1 week).
Motivation:
The editor provided a separate explanation of the rejection. It was by and large well justified. The fit of the article with the journal was not perfect. So, it is disappointing not to get "major revisions" but I get it.
Motivation:
The mentioned rejection time of 3 days on their website however, it took about 13 days to reject without peer review. And, recommended transfer of the manuscript to a much low, new journal of the system which clearly means they want to uplift their new journals at te cost quality work by others.
Motivation:
The review process was incredibly slow. Three months after we submitted we asked the editor for an update, and it took four more months to get an extremely short 'minor revisions' review (it was so short and trivial they could have just accepted it conditional on us making a few word changes). Then despite multiple follow-ups from us, it took a year and a half after submitting the minor revisions for it to be accepted. They mentioned the journal was going through transitions, but since the revisions were trivial (not even needing the reviewer to look at them again) we didn't understand the delay.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Both the reviewers said the paper has limited novelty without going into the technicality of the paper. I'm totally unsatisfied with the comments
Motivation:
No reviews from any reviewer were received. In the comment section, only "Minor Contribution" words were mentioned.
Motivation:
Very smooth and prompt review process. Reviewers were thorough and seemed attentive to the details and message conveyed to the readers. The last round of reviews took a day to be addressed because I made a single word change that may or may not have been considered important. As an author, I feel like that unnecessarily delayed the process for two weeks. Small complaint, but should be noted.
Motivation:
Overall experience was great. All the review process was fair, and smooth.
Motivation:
The manuscript engages reviewers who are not remotely associated with the field or the specialization, which makes it impossible to address the reviews. We withdrew our manuscript as the questions from the editor and reviewers were complete waste of our time. The journal does not reply to questions. I would strongly advise against submitting to BMC ID.
Motivation:
The manuscript was inadequately handled by Editors. After 40 days of "editorial handling" the manuscript was still "under evaluation". Several messages were sent to the journal to which no reasonable/credible answers were provided. We, the authors, have been passed between two journal managers and they provided inadequate responses. We were even asked to keep reminding them about the delays!
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
At no point the Editors contacted us. To put it mildly, we considered this approach totally inadequate which proves a lack of consideration for the potential authors.
For this reason, we withdrawn the manuscript.
This decision was not done because of being in a hurry to publish the work but as a protest of lack on consideration to us, the potential contributors to the journal.
I have published before with this journal but, having this experience, I might not be so keen in the future.
Motivation:
Insufficient editorial supervision and management of the revision process. The 1st review was useful, however, the manuscript need not have gone back to reviewers the 2nd time (and clearly not the 3rd). Overall a long review process, due to poor editorial handling.
Motivation:
minor comments from the reviewer to add some precision on experimental devices.