Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
7.0 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.4 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very satisfied with the publication process at Advanced Materials. Very efficient handling of the manuscript, prompt responses between authors and editors, and reasonable revision requests to the manuscript. Would submit future work for publication here.
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was clear, and the comments from the editor and reviewers were very helpful.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
19.3 weeks
32.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Very incompetent reviewers, did everything requested, nonetheless rejected in second round with new objections that weren't raised in the first round. No further reasons given by the editors. Probably not a good journal to submit to if you use econometrics.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: A quick review and excellent reviewers
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
14.1 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We got a desk-reject decision after less than three weeks. The editor considered that the paper was not a strong fit to the journal because the topic of our paper was of current interest to the journal's readers. There were additional comments about the poor quality of English as well as an insufficient engagement in the small business literature.
We only partly understand these criticisms as the main paper we use as a reference, both from the methodological perspective and the theoretical arguments was published in this very journal a few years ago. Additionally, we got no comments about the quality of English by the reviewers during a previous unsucessful submission of this manuscript.
11.7 weeks
32.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
10.7 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
4.3 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: It took an unreasonable amount of time (around 3 months) for the manuscript to be sent out for review. Upon receipt of the first decision (reject) - 16 weeks after submission - there was only one review report.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor suggested transferring the manuscript to the sister's journal (ACS Applied Electronic Materials).
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.6 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: While the reviewers were constructive and suggested changes that improved the manuscript, the process was very much delayed by adding on additional reviewers in rounds #2 and #3, even though we had addressed all previous reviewer questions. At some point, an editorial decision should have been made (all reviewers were overall positive about the importance and quality of the manuscript).
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Our paper was not a case report, the reason why it was rejected after 3 weeks! They did not accept the mistake. I asked for an explanation but they never did it.
6.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very good review reports
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process of open review was new to us, and we were pleasantly surprised about the outcome. We received comments from three different reviewers which where all very helpful to us. The reviews were overall balanced concerning pointing out strengths and weak spots in the manuscript. The comments were concrete and phrased in a manner that was easy to understand and follow when doing revisions.
n/a
n/a
102 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I am very disappointed with the overworked Editors and the lousy Editorial standards at this moneymaking journal. A previous submission here was also immediately rejected but nevertheless published in a very good journal with great referee comments. The insular comment in the decision letter on only one aspect of our multifaceted manuscript clearly showed that the busy Editor had not even properly read the paper a full time. Or else she understood just what she commented on, because you got to have special skills to miss everything else in the title, abstract and results. I am really amused by some of the commentaries on "trending" topics by whom they deem to be "experts" in my field. It clearly shows their lack of understanding of my field.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
7.1 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very constructive and pertinent referee reports. Fast handling. Paper improved significantly during the process.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "we did not find this to be sufficiently mechanistic"
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very professional and understandable rejection. Nature Energy has an extremely high impact factor, thus also high expectations. The rejection was informed very fast, which allowed me to directly resubmit the paper to another journal.
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The process was pretty fast. However, the sent work received an unconventional number of revisions. Specifically, 4 reviewers did the work. Their decisions were: "minor revision", two "major revision" and one "reject". The editor decided to reject the paper without the possibility to dialogue with the reviewers or address any problem of the paper.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer chosen by a journal had no idea about a research topic he reviewed. The sentences in the review revealed a total ignorance of reviewer in the matter of research topic.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
Motivation: One of the reviewers gave helpful feedback that improved the paper
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewer commented that the results are over-interpreted and the conclusions are not supported by data. However, the reviewer didn't offer reason.
5.9 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The speed of the manuscript handling was exceptional. Both reviewers had important criticisms of the paper, but neither recommended rejecting the paper. However, R2 said that the results were "unsurprising" and this put up a red flag for the editor, who said Ecology Letters can only accept the most innovative and novel papers, and that "unsurprising" results were insufficient.
8.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The report I received was very timely, critical, to the point and clear. The comments made by the reviewer improved considerably my paper. Moreover, from the comments, suggestions and criticisms, it was very clear that the reviewer is an expert in the field. I am extremely satisfied with the whole process, in particular with the way the editor Adrian Constantin handled my paper. In a nutshell, it was an excellent experience.
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
14.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted