Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After waiting for 4 months, received a review of cca. 30 words, telling me that my stats "were wrong because I am claiming that my correlations are low, but significant (r=0.2, p<0.05), while in fact they are high, because of a high number of respondents (N=232)". After receiving this, I sent an email to the editor, pointing out the very low level of quality of the review (and not asking for a second review). The editor responded the same day with a very rude and unprofessional email.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast. The journal team always kept us informed about the stages the paper was going through, the editors were very prompt in replying to emails. I highly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
General speaking, it is a positive experience with JMIR. JMIR author guidance is very clear and the structure of my manuscript has been improved by following the JMIR author guidance. Despite not paying for fast track publication, we received our reviews fairly quickly (around 2 months). Additionally, the comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers are quite useful.
Motivation:
The first round's decision for revise & resubmit was based mostly off of a single (though incredibly thorough) reviewer ("reviewer #1"). The second round included one more simple reviewer and an even more thorough request for revision from reviewer #1. The modifications made to our submission due to this reviewer #1's comments undoubtedly made the paper significantly better off. All in all the PNAS submission process, though stressful at times, was a great success!
Motivation:
The review process (one round of reviews) took 7.5 months to complete. Multiple emails to the editor went unanswered until the very end. The editor ultimately decided that the article wasn't a good fit for the journal. Couldn't that decision have been made before sending the the manuscript out for review?
Motivation:
The review was rather poor in that many of the points were not inherent faults of the paper but rather issues that could have been addressed and revised, if given the appropriate time/space to do so. Thus the decision sounded more subjective rather than grounded on fair points.
Motivation:
One reviewer recommends accepted, while a second reviewer recommended a rejection. According to reviews, Associate Editor decided to reject the paper.
8.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My overall experience is good with this journal. The journal gave enough chance to revise the manuscript. Satisfied with the overall process.
Motivation:
It seems that it took a bit long to send the manuscript to an associate editor (2 weeks). However, the associate editor was really fast about it.
Motivation:
The editorial assistance at CHSOC was excellent, the editorial work as well. The reviews were all useful and insightful.
Motivation:
It took 71 days to reach a decision.
Motivation:
our manuscript get rejected with no specific reasons. It really is a bad experience. I suggest not wasting time on this journal if you are not famous enough in your field.
Motivation:
very fast decision with several reasons and suggestions, this is really helpful
Motivation:
NAR receives far more manuscripts than it can consider for publication, and therefore all submissions are subjected to preliminary review by Executive Editors to assess their suitability for the journal. Detailed peer reviews are then sought for only a fraction of the manuscripts submitted. All manuscripts are evaluated relative to other recent submissions. In this case, I appreciate the effort that went into your research and the preparation of this manuscript. However, NAR prioritizes studies that focus on obtaining deep insights into molecular mechanism. Your manuscript has a broad focus and is primarily descriptive, making it more appropriate for a journal with a different specialization.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
Motivation:
Journal editorial process was discourteous and unprofessional in handling my manuscript in a timely manner to promote findings towards publication. The editorship took an unreasonably long time to produce reviews and allowed a number of unsubstantiated, tangential reviews to be submitted. Also, unclear guidance was provided in terms of editing that provided little direction and contradictory instructions. Overall, a poor performance of editorship and scholarly peer review process characterized my experience at JHCPU.
Motivation:
The editorial office does not answer emails and made devastating mistakes along the way. I have probably submitted 70 manuscripts in my career, this is by far the worst experience. Ended up withdrawing the paper due to the journal's incompetence.
Motivation:
A total review time of 5.5 months seems unreasonable (our editing contributed about 1 month to this). When the first round of edits are purely editorial, one might expect that the AE would make the call at that point rather than sending the manuscript out for a second round. When the second round of reviews consists of one review with comments that were addressed in under an hour by a find-and-replace and the addition of a single line to the text such that the manuscript was resubmitted within hours of receiving the "reviews", the AE should certainly make the call at that point. When the third round of reviews consist of no comments, one might start to wonder about the purpose of the second and third rounds of review. Personally, I started wondering if our bacteria had evolved since the initial submission, and were no longer considered part of the genus.
The one positive was that the invoice arrived in my inbox days after acceptance. Incredibly efficient! Well done, PLoS One.
The one positive was that the invoice arrived in my inbox days after acceptance. Incredibly efficient! Well done, PLoS One.
Motivation:
My experience and the experiences of several other collaborators with the REVIEW process of Cell Reports is not very promising. Even though the Editorial Board seems to be motivated to handle the manuscript fast, the indicated time window on cell reports homepage is not very realistic. They need at least twice as much time for everything. At least two more colleagues stated similar experiences. You should also take into account that 2-3 rounds of revisions are not rare even though cell reports officially claims this would be unusual. At least in my case the first round of revisions was very helpful but the follwing rounds were just time consuming and not very helpful in my opinion. In summary, you may submit your manuscript to another journal.
Motivation:
The process was very long and communication was limited. Although the time to the first revision was still acceptable, and revisions were helpful and important, the time it took after that was not reasonable.
Motivation:
Our reviewers were experts in this field, and we received high-quality reports. The editorial office provided quick responses.
53.3 weeks
53.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Our paper was transferred from Science Translational Medicine. That helped make the review process faster at Science Immunology. But still, I feel quite happy about the way this manuscript was handled at SI.