Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A journal that decides that an article submitted wasn't in line with its scope after this manuscript has been reviewed for over 8 months, is poor
Motivation:
I was very satisfied with the review process. I had two reviewers, one very positive and one rather negative. The editor seemed to like the article and gave us a rejection with the chance to resubmit. The reviewer reports were good quality and although they required a large amount of work, the suggestions greatly improved the paper. We re-submitted and the paper was sent back to the initial reviewers who were both happy with the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. I was very happy with the handling, the speed, and the reviewer reports. The subject editor seems to evaluate papers objectively and I am happy that he/she was not dissuaded by the initial negative report of reviewer 2, but rather saw potential in the paper and gave us the chance to improve it. Nothing but good experiences with this journal.
Motivation:
it is a very good and very fast journal. the first round of review takes about 3 weeks only. we should indicate that there are 3 reviewers (two technical and the other one for improving the English text)
46.0 weeks
46.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Almost a year passed away from the initial submission and the two reviewers developed a superficial revision of the paper in 6/7 sentences. Furthermore, unfortunately and somehow they were contradictory. For instance, the 1st reviewer argue that "Professional native-speaker proofreading required!", instead the 2nd one pointed out that "Again, congratulations for the writing and structure of the paper. It is clear and well-done".
Motivation:
Received a useful desk rejection with extensive editorial comments.
Motivation:
Disappointing result but at least (unlike the other high-impact magazine) the immediate rejection was only one week (instead of several).
Motivation:
Quick review, the reviewers focused on important issues of the paper. Quick responses.
Motivation:
Some problem with review process. But overall rating is quite good.
Motivation:
Paper was rejected by the editor on the grounds that it was 'out of scope of this journal'. I was surprised by this; the article was on a topic that the journal publishes on regularly. They recommended that we transfer the manuscript to a journal of the ACS Applied series, which we declined, as our article had little to do with the subject of that journal.
Motivation:
Review process was very slow but reviewers were very kind.
Motivation:
The desk rejection time is disappointingly long.
Motivation:
One of the referees was constructive, but the other was not. I think we could answer to the questions&comments of this critical reviewer, however the editors didn't offered an opportunity for revision.
Motivation:
In our view, the manuscript improved substantially through the review process.
Motivation:
They say the article is interesting and well-crafted but too narrow. I do not fault their decision, but it strikes me as having taken too long to be communicated to me.
Motivation:
Although there were some basic misunderstandings by the referees, it was finally rejected with reasonable basis. The editor was fair and author friendly.
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The second review was about 127 words.
In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable
In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable
Motivation:
As the best comment may serve the first review I've got:
This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.
which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.
which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
Motivation:
Although the review times were very reasonable, the online submission service would benefit from some method of tracking the progress of the article.
Motivation:
Got a courtesy mail when the reviews took longer than expected. Disappointed to be rejected with no flaws in the manuscript, but a bunch of smaller issues. Very clear communication from the editor.
Motivation:
I appreciate every paper is different, and editors are extremely busy, but in this case the editor rejected the ms because they deemd it not significant enough of a contribution to the field. I respect that decsion, althought I would of course argue the point. However, given the editor's opinion, sending it out for revision and the long (for the field) decsion process seems like a waste of everyone's time. It was certainly frustrating. The reviewers comments will be useful in revising the manuscript, but not 4 months useful. This journal also requires specific formatting which contributes to further wasted time. I hope they can modernise a bit to make it a bit less frustrating for potential authors in the future, or at least display publication/ decsion statistics similar to the journal of Animal Behaviour.
Motivation:
A very long process with no revision for 5 months, then rejection for "lack of space".
Motivation:
We originally submitted our manuscript to the journal Advanced Science (Manuscript ID: advs.201900965) on April 25 2019 and it was rejected on May 14 2019 (almost 3 weeks later) without being submitted for review. In the rejection, the editor of the journal offered transfer to Advanced Biosystems. After discussing the issue with the Editor, he said that "within our portfolio, your paper would suits best for Advanced Biosystems so I cannot guarantee peer-review in any other journal" Thus, we transferred our manuscript to Advanced Biosystems. For my enormous and unpleasant surprise, on May 24 (9 days after!!!), I received an email from the handling assistant editor justifying the rejection of our manuscript (indeed without submission to reviewers) with the following words:
"Unfortunately, we are not able to consider it further for publication. We're sorry for this unsuccessful transfer. As we receive many more manuscripts than we can possibly publish, or even send out for review, we are forced to adopt a stringent selection process. We therefore can only select those manuscripts we believe will interest the broadest possible section of our readership and represent a significant breakthrough of general interest.
We therefore did not want to delay this decision and wish you success in submission of the manuscript to another journal."
Overall, this cannot defined as handling but as mishandling of our manuscript. I am doubtful that the assistant editor in Advanced Biosystems read or understood the manuscript.
"Unfortunately, we are not able to consider it further for publication. We're sorry for this unsuccessful transfer. As we receive many more manuscripts than we can possibly publish, or even send out for review, we are forced to adopt a stringent selection process. We therefore can only select those manuscripts we believe will interest the broadest possible section of our readership and represent a significant breakthrough of general interest.
We therefore did not want to delay this decision and wish you success in submission of the manuscript to another journal."
Overall, this cannot defined as handling but as mishandling of our manuscript. I am doubtful that the assistant editor in Advanced Biosystems read or understood the manuscript.
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.
Motivation:
The review process was clear, and the comments from the editor and reviewers were very helpful.
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.
Motivation:
A quick review and excellent reviewers