Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth. The time it took for the editors to accept the paper was a bit long, considering it was a rather minor revision, but the time frame was still very reasonable. The reviewers and editors were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
The decision was clear, both reviewers recommended rejecting the paper. The editor agrees that the paper is not a fit for the journal or specific subfield... why not desk reject? Got detailed comments that will help us move forward, though!
Motivation:
The overall review process took a reasonable amount of time. The production phase was a bit slow, taking almost 3 weeks. The quality of the revisions was average.
Motivation:
A Revista Texto & Contexto demora um pouco para responder sobre a avaliação, aceite ou recusa.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.
Motivation:
The editor did a good job handling the manuscript. However, the process takes too long. Five different reviewers review the article (with very different point of views)
Motivation:
The publication processs was fast. The editor did a good job selecting the reviewers.
Motivation:
As always, a speedier review would be appreciated, but communication with the editor was always very good!
Motivation:
Review took long and the reviewers comments did not suggest much about generalisability though it was rejected as not generalisable enough
Motivation:
It took the action editor 1 full month after all reviews were submitted to let us know the outcome. One reviewer didn't even read the paper properly. Never again
Motivation:
The answer was just a generic "stock" email without any explication. It was just saying "we think that your manuscript would be a better fit for another journal".
Motivation:
The editor said that was not perfectly fitting with the journal for the lack of molecular mechanism. So s/he suggested to transfer it to NAR Cancer because better fitting for our topic.
Motivation:
Too long a wait period for a desk reject. Very generic reason given for rejection. In the future, I would not submit to Nature Neuroscience unless I am relatively much more sure about acceptance.
Motivation:
The response for desk reject was rather prompt!
Motivation:
I have published previously in Applied Energy, but something has changed.
For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications.
Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these.
I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text.
The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.
For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications.
Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these.
I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text.
The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very kind response of the reviewer.
They could place at the website that they only accept multiple experiment manuscripts.
They could place at the website that they only accept multiple experiment manuscripts.
Motivation:
The editors apologized for the delay, which was mainly due to the summer break.
Motivation:
It took too long period for review process. Additionally, one of the reviewers did not provide specific comments, but merely gave some general opinions, which even implied discrimination against our case selection. We guess he/she filled with disdain for cases in developing countries.
Motivation:
2 months for desk rejection is unacceptable and very disrespectful. After 2 months without news, I sent a e-mail asking for updates about my manuscript, and then received the desk rejection, with the reason that it was not given high priority during initial assessment.
Motivation:
Reviewers were poor - one clearly hadn't even read the paper (review was less than 2 lines long), and the other I don't think was qualified to review the paper. I understand that need for a fast review process, but they should at least get reviewers who are able to review the manuscript thoroughly.
Motivation:
It took too long for a desk rejection.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I am very happy with service.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers reacted very negatively to our manuscript.
That reviewer left comments which suggest the reviewer did not even read the manuscript. After we received the decision of rejection, we begged the editor to change the reviewer to a fair person, but the editor did not reply to us.
This is my worst submission experience ever. Four months of waste.
That reviewer left comments which suggest the reviewer did not even read the manuscript. After we received the decision of rejection, we begged the editor to change the reviewer to a fair person, but the editor did not reply to us.
This is my worst submission experience ever. Four months of waste.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process was fast, but the reviewers did not seem to have the appropriate domain expertise. The final decision was based on ratings given by the reviewers that are not visible to us.
Motivation:
JoPS suggested a transfer to another elsevier journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers did an excellent job by thoroughly questioning the experimental methods and interpretation of results. This brought us to perform additional analyses, that actually confirmed that our original data handling gave better and more consolidating results. We do not totally regret the time loss, because we learned a lot on different ways of data handling during this rather scary setback.
Motivation:
The manuscript had a quick turn-around and the reviewer comments were informed, straightforward, and applicable to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Fairly quick and straightforward review process, no second review after a light revise & resubmit (minor revisions). Overall great experience!
Motivation:
During the review process, three reviewers were assigned. 29 days later, the decision was made with two review reports. Although it took time, the reports were convincing and highly conducive for improving our manuscript.
Motivation:
It was a high quality, sophisticated, and professional review process
Motivation:
Very detailed comments by the reviewer.