Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviews were fair and outcome was positive, but associatie editorial guidance was weak and prolonged the process unnecessarily.
Motivation:
In overall the review process was ok, but I would expect opinion of more than one reviewer.
Motivation:
The Editor seemed to have taken a very cautious stance against this manuscript. The Manuscript was sent initially to two reviewers, and the first round was relatively quick. However, the second reviewer came up with a long list of comments (about 8 "major" and 60 "minor"). We have then revised the manuscript substantially and have done a lot of work on it and submitted it back to the journal, hoping that all issues had been addressed. The second round of reviews took much longer, and the same Reviewer, again, submitted an even longer list of comments (about 100 - 110 points), and it was a real nightmare. All of those comments were written in an exceptionally poor English, and it took a lot of time just to understand what he was writing. The response to the Reviewer comments has taken 16 pages. Most of those comments were useless, and it seemed the Reviewer just didn't want this paper to be published! After having communicated with the Editor, the latter confirmed that the Reviewer needed to be changed, and then the Editor reviewed the re-revised manuscript himself. It took four rounds of review to get this paper published.
Motivation:
Took a long time for a desk reject - sat with Editorial Board for over 5 weeks and then the minute it went to Editor was rejected. Generic letter, not helpful.
Motivation:
Bad paper review
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers formulated useful, minor suggestions, while the comments of the other reviewer were confusing and sometimes completely incomprehensible and in very poor English.
Motivation:
Comments from the 1st reviewer were mostly poor and erroneous incorrect, but the comments from the 2nd reviewer were fair and helped us to improve our work.
Motivation:
Sixty days for an abstract-based rejection
Motivation:
Relatively painless process. Editor thought the paper too descriptive and correlative and more suited for a cancer-oriented journal.
Motivation:
We were dissatisfied with only one review, with which we personally not fully agree.
Motivation:
Decision to desk reject was poorly justified and not signed by anyone, cloaking process in anonymity without any accountability
Motivation:
Review process was constructive and reasonably efficient. Initial decision letter was worded exceptionally poorly, making standard revisions seem like a doomed outcome.
Motivation:
The review process was satisfactory, although quite slow.
Motivation:
The review process took an unusually long time, as the current editor took over 6 months after submission and the previous editors were unresponsive to any queries regarding the manuscript's progress.
Motivation:
A senior editor did not find the topic a good fit with the journal, however, articles on the same topic have been published in the journal.
Motivation:
Contact with the editor was difficult after waiting for months. However, I realize that my manuscript may well be an outlier compared to what other manuscripts experience.
8.7 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I waited almost 8 months after submitting a Revised manuscript (having been invited to an R&R). Then without much explanation, the paper was rejected. I felt it very unfair that we had to wait for 8 months to receive a rejection, while the paper had been improved substantially.
Motivation:
I've made substantial changes to the manuscript after first round of reviews. Reviews were of high quality, although one reviewer was picking up on things that seem to me to be irrelevant to the overall argument. Honestly, I had the feeling that rev. no 2 had not understood what the paper was about, issues that were according to her/him useless were praised by the first reviewer. I've provided both reviewers with "rebuttal letter" pointing out all the changes made according to the reviews. However, rev. no 2 was still not satisfied and keep pointing out new issues, to which I had no chance to reply. Editor eventually decided to side with the rev. no 2 and the manuscript was rejected.
Motivation:
A review time of eight weeks is a bit long for a journal that boasts about speed. The reviews were fair, but a bit passive-aggressive.
Motivation:
A transferred manuscript which is supposed to reasonably decrease review time was unfortunately failed to get a handling editor for two months, unbelievably. Yet, after receiving a review, the manuscript had again stuck in the hands of the handling editor for more than two months because of the unavailability of additional reviewers. We tried to reach out to the editorial office to explain the situation but apologizing for the delay in all of our three communications was what we received. This is a very chilling and outrageous experience we have ever had. Submitting to this journal is waste of time.
Motivation:
Reasonable and helpful reviews, very responsive editors, and quick decision.
Motivation:
The review process was rapid and a statistical review also was done. Although we felt the editors were harsh in rejecting as the reviews were ambivalent
Motivation:
The editor acknowledged that it took longer than he thought was appropriate but that it was the reviewers fault (what else is new) and said he hoped it wouldn't put me off applying there in the future. The reviews had enough helpful parts in them that I am not displeased with having submitted it. Unfortunately, the 3rd review, which is what held up the entire process, didn't actually seem to read the paper properly (ie I don't see an interaction model, when they are clearly present in the tables).
Motivation:
Fast and thorough process - the editor gave feedback and suggested alternative journals.