Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
My impression is that they were unable to find a reviewer willing to comment on the paper and were simply waiting until I get tired and withdraw the paper myself (they reminded me about the option after I pointed out to them the unusually long consideration time).
Motivation:
A bit long
Motivation:
Some edits suggested by the reviewers were useful, whilst other criticisms seemed somewhat unwarranted or largely opinion-based. The response from one of the two reviewers was quite lengthy but could have been improved by including more concise and constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
The editor's email was rudely phrased, especially since I was suggested by an editor to send it to this journal and the the reviews suggest the reviewers voted R&R. While not everything in the reviews was clear and some of it is impossible (ie creating new data), some helpful comments can be extracted. The time and the editor's attitude have put me off this journal though.
Motivation:
The editor was efficient and the reviewers' comments are reasonable and logical, which helped in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
This is a great journal and we enjoyed the smooth editorial process. We received considered and helpful reviewer and editorial comments. Note this was a 'Brief communication' article type which means review speed etc may be slightly faster than for regular articles.