Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
One reviewer rejected because of "possible overlap" with 2 other manuscript with no access. This has no-sense since the preprints of the 2 other manuscripts were available online and the reviewer could verify the supposed "overlap".
The second reviewer claims that the topic of our article was not in the scope of the journal.
The second reviewer claims that the topic of our article was not in the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
For the initial quality check for the manuscript submission, the journal was suggested us to provide the full-length gels and blots as a supplementary Information. So Fig S9 and S10 are the original full-length blots which we took some times to find them. This is our fist experience to provide the such kinds of original data.
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewer is of high quqlity. Actually I needed to use all data I saved for the second part of the paper focusing on different properties because the reviewer was interested in those. The comments of the reviewer was kind of difficult ones. But, I could revise the paper without much efforts because I already had many of the data.
Motivation:
The review period was not quite long, and there were plausible comments for the paper improvement.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, and regular contact from the Editor.
Motivation:
Motivation:
The editor handled the paper ver nicely. The review reports came within a short period of time, and they were very constructive and useful.
Motivation:
The editor didn't know about the existence of a fourth reviewer. We had actually received the comments of a fourth reviewer in an extra email one week after the first decision with comments of the first three reviewers. We appealed the decision, but it was still rejected.
Motivation:
The journal is of high quality.
Motivation:
Very bad experience with the journal. We published the paper in a much more reputed journal than this. The AE gave some illogical comments. I think he/she is not aware of the approach proposed in the paper.
Motivation:
The process of working with JMIR and its editorial team was very straightforward. We received productive feedback on the submitted manuscript and were pleased with you quickly our revision was processed and accepted for publication.
Motivation:
Four months after submitting the manuscript I emailed the editorial office to aks for an update. They answered that they had only received 1 peer review and asked for additional potential reviewers. I suggested a few, but the manuscript was rejected the same day, based on 1 review.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted, but then took 4 months to be published. Asking us to cite other papers post acceptance and discussions about press releases, massively hindered publication. They were slow to respond to our concerns but frequently gave ridiculous deadlines (<24hrs) to respond to them. They pride themselves on being open access and speedy publication. This was not the case for us. Overall a very unprofessional experience and a huge delay.
Motivation:
When you see other articles dealing with related topic" being "sufficiently striking advance to justify publication, you wonder on the biased editorial comments; they (editorial board) obviously didn't have time to come across the content.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers enjoyed the paper and suggested publication. The second reviewer was obviously uncomfortable with statistics and did not understand the study design, however they never said to reject the paper. A different reviewer should have been chosen. It felt that the editor never read the paper and strongly guided by one reviewer and not the other.