Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editorial process was professional and efficient - the reviewers gave important and insightful comments quickly and the editor was extremely responsive. I also think the presubmission inquiry is a very good way to test the waters without investing everything in one go and having to make substantial changes in formatting after a desk rejection. A wonderful reviewing experience.
Motivation:
Submitting process was not clear, online system kept asking for forms that were not required and inefficient response from the editorial assistance on the process and system and finally poor time frame for an immediate rejection
Motivation:
After almost 6 months from the initial submission, editors told me that they didn't find referees for the mandatory review process. It was weird because the topic fits quite well in journal. Anyway, if you have a few time you'll realise that journal is full of papers developed by spanish/latin america authors.
Motivation:
We have had a mostly positive experience submitting to Scientific Reports, considering the short initial review process and the subsequent revisions. The only downside is how picky the journal is with regards to the "Quality Check" as we had to resubmit several times following the first round of revision due to files going missing from the system in the process and one file not being noticed by the editorial staff (not very professional). But an overall speedy and hassle-free process.
18.3 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
It was a great experience - editorial handling and review time was extremely fast, reviews were useful and reasonable, and we had the paper online within about 3 months of initial submission!
Motivation:
After 3 months of no contact, I got feedback from 1 reviewer that was only 4 sentences that simply restated what was in the manuscript abstract. Apparently the other reviewer's comments had been admitted. The review was shallow and the editors gave a stock explanation for rejection saying: "Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication."
Motivation:
Quick, shallow rejection from the editors
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected 3 months after the submission. Both reviewers agreed that the manuscript was not within the scope of the Journal of College Student Development. I respect that, but determining the suitability of a manuscript and whether it falls within the scope of a journal is the responsibility of the editorial office. Also, the determining the suitability does not usually take more than a couple weeks (compared to 3 months).
Motivation:
Fast review process. The quality of the reviews was somewhat lower than expected, otherwise a positive overall experience.
Motivation:
Fast review process. One very positive reviewer, one rather negative reviewer. The editor(s) allowed their own interpretation of the article to determine the outcome. Quality of the reviews was rather high.
Motivation:
Very fast desk reject. Puzzing reason for desk reject.
Motivation:
Fast review process. While the quality of the reviews was high and have contributed to a better article in the end, I don't think the tone of the reviewers merited a reject. The only negative aspect of the review process was thus the rather subjective decision made by the editor to reject, despite reviewers suggesting revise and resubmit.
Motivation:
The delay, ~1 month, for rejection was disappointingly long.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took three months which is longer than I expected; the second round was carried out in one month which is reasonable in my opinion. The reviews were detailed and helped to improve the manuscript. Overall, I was happy with the process.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Manuscript Title" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very low quality and superficial referee comments, which clearly exposed that the referees did not bother to thoroughly read the paper, let alone try to understand it. Comments provided no indication of how the paper could be developed in order to make it publishable. Out of the nine (positive and negative) reviews I have received thus far, this one was clearly and by far the least helpful one. A desk reject in this case would have been better and would have safed me several months time.
Motivation:
All the reviewers had very important comments and we addressed all of them in the revised version. I also learned a lot while writing the revised version. It was a great experience.
Motivation:
The reviews consisted each of two lines without going into the argument we were trying to make or its substantiation or merits. The only feedback I got from the editor was that the manuscript was 'not suitable. '
Another problem was that they did not respond to emails I sent after I did not hear from them. Only after about 15 months did they respond, and that was with this minimal rejection.
Another problem was that they did not respond to emails I sent after I did not hear from them. Only after about 15 months did they respond, and that was with this minimal rejection.