Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Manuscript was transferred to another journal by the same publisher, as per the principal editor's suggestion.
Motivation:
The Editor who evaluated my paper was not from my field. Her PhD was in Molecular Medicines while my area is semiconductor Physics exactly The LED. It was very bad experience.
Motivation:
Micromanaging stylistic and subjective critique from editor in chief.
Motivation:
Very involved editor with strong opinions and overly directive. Micromanaging. Despite double blind review (excellent pt for editor-in-chief) personal and overly subjective editorial involvement seems evident. Manuscript sent to another reputable journal and accepted in 4 weeks.
Motivation:
Reviewers dedicated much time reviewing the manuscript. The comments are helpful to further improve the manuscript contents.
Motivation:
It took FoCM more than a year from the date of submission until we received a response from the editor. One reviewer was clearly an expert and wrote a positive review, recommending only smaller changes. The other reviewer, who was very clearly not an expert on the topic and misunderstood several of our results, wrote a negative report. The editor chose to listen to the non-expert.
Motivation:
The review process is reasonally quick. The comments from the reviewers make sense.
I am satisfied with the whole process.
I am satisfied with the whole process.
Motivation:
I think three weeks was a long wait for a desk reject, but the article was eventually published in a different journal.
Motivation:
Reviewing was carried out quickly and efficiently. The comments of the reviewers were very correct.
Motivation:
The EIC is helpful, although his practice may not be generally adopted. A few days after my initial submission, he wrote a fairly long paragraph of constructive feedback asking for my revision but he has made it "rejected" on record. I still submit it again given he explicitly asked me to do so.
I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.
I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 331.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Non-responsive editor & exceptionally lengthy time to decision. I suggest to submit your work elsewhere
Motivation:
Very reasonable comments. The paper was seriously considered, however the novelty was not at the level of excitement for Cell. I wish the immediate rejection would not take full 2 weeks. Also we received the decision letter only after the follow up email.
Motivation:
Unlike other nature journals, the publication process in Comms Bio was very smooth. Editors are very committed and efficient.
Motivation:
I only received the standard desk-rejection email. .
Motivation:
I had a great experience with EJN. The comments made by one of the reviewers were not friendly and rather unfounded. The editor handled this with care and gave us a chance for revising the ms and dealing with the unhelpful comments.
Motivation:
The process is smooth, but the initial quality check takes way too long.
Motivation:
Review took 260+ days, no updates were provided during the process. The journal sent the manuscript to one reviewer, who had different theoretical and methodological perspectives than mine, and gave me no opportunity to respond.
Motivation:
Very unimpressed by the fact that obvious factual errors were missed by 3 different people in the review process. The reviewer selection process leads to random referees, very unfamiliar with the basics of your manuscript. The report consisted of a few valid points that could be easily addressed, but some major criticisms by both reviewers were factually incorrect. For instance, the major criticism was that "you do not generally know the quantity that this method requires as input, therefore the method is useless." In fact, we do know that quantity, always, and the proof was too obvious to include originally. Apparently it was not obvious to the reviewers. The editor rejected the paper on these factually incorrect premises. Since the reviewers took 9 months to provide a low quality report, we did not bother to provide the proof. We included it and submitted in much better journals, of higher impact factor, and got much better quality reports.
Motivation:
The journal communication is prompt.
Motivation:
A colleague suggested we sent our paper fairly standard computational manuscript to PCCP which neither of us has tried before. We thought the paper would go through normal peer review with typical responses which we usually get from our usual go-to ACS J Phys Chem B ot J. Am. Chem Soc. The review took more than the estimated time in PCCP (3-4 weeoks) and amounted to 1 month + 1 week which is fine we are all busy people. The real shock was when we read the response.
(i) First, there was only one reviewer! Not even two just one!
(ii) That single reviewer was clearly outsider to our field based on generic questions!
(iii) The real shock, however, was that despite the fact that the reviewer asked honest questions and gave suggestions the editor felt appropriate to make a rejecting decision!!
At this point, we decided to write to the senior editor as we felt this was gross incompetence on the part of PCCP team. The senior editor apologized and offered us to resubmit and sent for another round. Long story we resubmit and a week later we get another single review making short offhand comments unrelated to our paper but with a clear intent to quickly reject our paper. After 2+ month we are left with no proper review, this is unacceptable. Perhaps we had bad luck with the editor but we are never risking wasting our time on PCCP again. Why bother JPCB is a better journal anyway.
(i) First, there was only one reviewer! Not even two just one!
(ii) That single reviewer was clearly outsider to our field based on generic questions!
(iii) The real shock, however, was that despite the fact that the reviewer asked honest questions and gave suggestions the editor felt appropriate to make a rejecting decision!!
At this point, we decided to write to the senior editor as we felt this was gross incompetence on the part of PCCP team. The senior editor apologized and offered us to resubmit and sent for another round. Long story we resubmit and a week later we get another single review making short offhand comments unrelated to our paper but with a clear intent to quickly reject our paper. After 2+ month we are left with no proper review, this is unacceptable. Perhaps we had bad luck with the editor but we are never risking wasting our time on PCCP again. Why bother JPCB is a better journal anyway.
Motivation:
very positive and constructive comments were addressed by one reviewer. The second reviewer was very concise.
Motivation:
constructive and detailed comments from the reviewers. However, the process was very long.