Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I had mentioned in my cover letter that I needed things to move fast due to the tenure process and this is what occurred. They made the decision to send out for initial review in one day. The reviews we received reflected a very careful reading of the manuscript and a very constructive response focused on how improve it even further. The consultative process helped keep the number of changes requested to a manageable level within the eight weeks they aim for for revision. The reviews came up with suggestions as to how to textually address two of the five essential points if we could not carry out the requested experiments. The review of the revision just requested a few minor textual changes that greatly improved things further. The experience was exactly what I want from a scientific journal, it felt like a consultation among scientists who were focused on substance, not on arbitrarily delaying us or pursuing some pet idea unrelated to our original intentions.
Motivation:
The editorial process was good and all queries were answered swiftly. One referee was three weeks overdue on their review, resulting in the lengthy revision process. Following the first round of revision, the predominant changes to be made were grammatical (British to American English), an aspect which I will be more aware of in future submissions.
Motivation:
I had a fantastic experience having my manuscript reviewed by Journal of Sex Research. The process moved very quickly, and I felt that I received helpful and insightful comments.
Motivation:
Excellent and relatively painless review process. Cost of publishing is high but articles will be open access.
Motivation:
Decision is very slow.
Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision.
There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response.
Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision.
There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and constructive comments were raised (2 reviewers, 5-6 questions each pertaining to addition of nomenclature table, suggestions to elaborate specific sections of paper in a certain way, formatting mistakes, in depth doubts with respect to material presented in paper etc). This was our first time publishing in a wiley energy journal other than Elsevier and the experience was better compared to the latter. Recommended journal.
11.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal provides excellent, professional, insightful, and critical comments and suggestions for the author and also handles the manuscript in a very efficient way. The author really appreciates all the time and effort of the reviewers and editors.
Motivation:
First and last experience with this journal. Every step in the process took a long time. The editor-in-chief (EIC) was clearly a major part of the problem. Sometimes the review comments were submitted but I had to wait for two or more weeks to receive the decision--which was literally sending the comments of the reviewer without any other addition.
Before submitting the article, I asked the journal and I was given a reasonable, estimated timeline to receive the final decision. but, it took almost more than three months for the journal to find a reviewer. The paper was finally reviewed by only one reviewer. The reviewer was also the least professional reviewer I've ever worked with. In the first round, we received some reasonable comments which were fully addressed. In the second round, which took a significant amount of time, the same reviewer picked some other parts of the article and provided completely new arguments that were not even helpful--didn't he read the article completely in the first round? These were parts that had no connections to his first comments.
We finally received the acceptance email on Oct 17 after three revisions. About a month later, there was still no single email from the journal about the next step and production... so given that by then I had learned that the journal is super slow in everything, I started to email the editorial office hoping to have a 2018 publication out of this work. The secretary sent contact info of two IEEE proofreaders handling the article. I emailed them, but almost a month later after many follow-up emails, they finally replied and said we have not received your paper as an accepted paper from the journal. Getting back to the EIC, it seems that he is first waiting to figure what issue they want to fit the paper in before moving forward with the production--and clearly the secretary had no clue whatsoever what the EIC was doing and who is responsible for the next step.
The only thing that I know now (Dec 1, 2018) is that the paper will not appear online in any form until they figure out the issue number! Seriously!? Most journals these days put the article online shortly after a proofreading with an in-press status. The EIC clarified that this will happen in 2019, but no specific date was given (remember, the paper received acceptance on Oct 17, 2018!).
Anyway, my first and last experience with this journal (and the IEEE family). Very unprofessional handling of a submission and lack of transparency and commitment from day one! Consider other venues for publishing your research.
Before submitting the article, I asked the journal and I was given a reasonable, estimated timeline to receive the final decision. but, it took almost more than three months for the journal to find a reviewer. The paper was finally reviewed by only one reviewer. The reviewer was also the least professional reviewer I've ever worked with. In the first round, we received some reasonable comments which were fully addressed. In the second round, which took a significant amount of time, the same reviewer picked some other parts of the article and provided completely new arguments that were not even helpful--didn't he read the article completely in the first round? These were parts that had no connections to his first comments.
We finally received the acceptance email on Oct 17 after three revisions. About a month later, there was still no single email from the journal about the next step and production... so given that by then I had learned that the journal is super slow in everything, I started to email the editorial office hoping to have a 2018 publication out of this work. The secretary sent contact info of two IEEE proofreaders handling the article. I emailed them, but almost a month later after many follow-up emails, they finally replied and said we have not received your paper as an accepted paper from the journal. Getting back to the EIC, it seems that he is first waiting to figure what issue they want to fit the paper in before moving forward with the production--and clearly the secretary had no clue whatsoever what the EIC was doing and who is responsible for the next step.
The only thing that I know now (Dec 1, 2018) is that the paper will not appear online in any form until they figure out the issue number! Seriously!? Most journals these days put the article online shortly after a proofreading with an in-press status. The EIC clarified that this will happen in 2019, but no specific date was given (remember, the paper received acceptance on Oct 17, 2018!).
Anyway, my first and last experience with this journal (and the IEEE family). Very unprofessional handling of a submission and lack of transparency and commitment from day one! Consider other venues for publishing your research.
Motivation:
The review rounds were (relatively) quick and the editor also responded quickly. Overall we're very pleased with the whole process.
Motivation:
While the editorial process was generally good - when reviewers had opposing opinion, they were managed well, for example - the process was very lengthy. On each submission round the editors took a few weeks to even start processing the submission, which accounted to a very extensive review process.
Motivation:
The submission to this journal was very clear from the beginning, with information provided via email regarding every stage of the manuscript until publication was reached. The contact with the the Editors-in-Chief was always positive.
Motivation:
I would highly recommend this journal. The entire process was a real pleasure. The Section Manager Editor was simply fantastic, very helpful. And the reviewers were really good. I wish I knew their identities so I could tell them "thank you" in person. We opted for the open review, especially for this reason, to show how much they contributed to the final version of our paper.
The best experience with publishing I had so far.
The best experience with publishing I had so far.
Motivation:
Two reviewers recommended rejection due to "no new insights". The third reviewer recommended publishing after minor revisions. One reviewer did not provide any explanation why our findings could not constitute "new insights", the text of his review could be equally easily used for other manuscripts, not just ours. The other rejecting reviewer provided some itemization, which was debatable, but we did not pursue with any appeal.
Motivation:
In line with many reviews here: The handling time is way too long (ridiculous quality check), reviewer comments were not useful at all. In the end, the published version was almost identical to the first version submitted but the whole process took 9 months.
Motivation:
Very fast handling times, excellent reviewer comments that helped to considerably improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editor was nice. The reviewers gave strong remarks. A very good first experience in publishing articles
Motivation:
The overall review process took almost 15 months!
The first round took nearly 8 months. Two reviewers were positive and they requested limited revisions (add some context information and add implications in the disucssion). I completed the requested revisions and resubmitted my article within the requested time frame.
After seven months I received two times in one week a 'reject' with no comments. It turned out this were technical mistakes so they would re-revise my manuscript again. Finally after almost eight months after resubmitting my revised manuscript I received comments from a third total new reviewer who was negative about the overall manuscript, in contradiction with the previous two reviewers in the first round. Based on this the editor rejected my manuscript.
Overall I respect the rejection, but the fact that this journal has had my manuscript with them for 15 months and rejected my paper after limited revisions were requested is very unfortunate and demotivating for a PhD researcher.
The first round took nearly 8 months. Two reviewers were positive and they requested limited revisions (add some context information and add implications in the disucssion). I completed the requested revisions and resubmitted my article within the requested time frame.
After seven months I received two times in one week a 'reject' with no comments. It turned out this were technical mistakes so they would re-revise my manuscript again. Finally after almost eight months after resubmitting my revised manuscript I received comments from a third total new reviewer who was negative about the overall manuscript, in contradiction with the previous two reviewers in the first round. Based on this the editor rejected my manuscript.
Overall I respect the rejection, but the fact that this journal has had my manuscript with them for 15 months and rejected my paper after limited revisions were requested is very unfortunate and demotivating for a PhD researcher.
Motivation:
The review process was overall very good and fast.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were perfect.
The reviewing process took a long time. For my paper, this process was almost 15 months from the submitting paper for the first time until the paper has been accepted.
The reviewing process took a long time. For my paper, this process was almost 15 months from the submitting paper for the first time until the paper has been accepted.
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed speedily and thoroughly, and many of the comments were helpful and will improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
I chose the fast track process to fasten this step. When you conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews, the knowledge evolves quickly. At the time of the intial submission, the review is not "up-to-date" anymore. If the review process takes a long time, then, reviewers may ask to update the literature/search strategy. It can be a "never-ending" process...
I was very impressed by the timeline of this fast track process.
I got high quality services, I had very constructive comments from the reviewers.
I'm very satisfied and proud to be published in this high impact factor journal (JMIR).
I was very impressed by the timeline of this fast track process.
I got high quality services, I had very constructive comments from the reviewers.
I'm very satisfied and proud to be published in this high impact factor journal (JMIR).
Motivation:
Reviewers were rather out of the field. In particular the one review report on which the decision has been apparently made had simply wrong and obviously inaccurate statements for rejection. However, the journal was not interested in hearing our side, even after a very detailed appeal.
Motivation:
Rather fast bounce-back with a generic rejection e-mail.
Motivation:
We received two reviews, after three months, with the decision to reject the manuscript. Reviewer comments were fair, and the decision to reject was based on one of the reviewers comments about methodological concerns. These study caveats are discussed and justified in the manuscript. The other review was positive and constructive. I have no problem with the outcome, but 3 months is a long time to wait for a rejection.
Motivation:
Reviewer's comments were mediocre and showed a lack of expertise in the field. Also, they showed a clear misunderstanding of the research in the manuscript. The associate editor simply did not believe the results (since it did not fit his vision) and was not willing to discuss the reviews. The manuscript was quickly published in another journal and was highly appreciated among the gurus in the field. I do not recommend eLife but one can always try.
Motivation:
Overall, a very positive experience with a very professional editorial handling.
Motivation:
THe article was rejected from Journal of Health Psychology for the following reason:
"a shortage of space for publication in JHP. Our sister journal, Health Psychology Open, has unrestricted space and there is no word length maximum for articles."
A link was also provided to the recommended Open journal, which has Article processing charges.
"a shortage of space for publication in JHP. Our sister journal, Health Psychology Open, has unrestricted space and there is no word length maximum for articles."
A link was also provided to the recommended Open journal, which has Article processing charges.