Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
In my opinion, a better better approach would be to reject the paper straight away than spend several months revieweing it (one reviewer was assigned), with the outcome of the review process being one short paragraph. At least, not for a journal that seeks to achieve prominence in the field.
Motivation:
The editor and 2 out of 3 reviewers did an amazing job. Especially one reviewer has been extremely careful and significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. The third reviewer, however, has constantly been late, has sent very approximate reviews (that shown that he/she did not read the manuscript carefully) and ultimately dropped out the reviewing process, after having caused a tremendous delay.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to too many submissions, even though my paper went through a positive first round of reviews.
Motivation:
As per my knowledge, the majority number of review reports are positive then they are willing to publish. But in this case, the editor is claiming that they need all (in my case 3 review reports) reviewers should give positive (instead of majority reports) to proceed further for the acceptance of the work to publish.
It is very strange!!!!!
It is very strange!!!!!
Motivation:
After 10 months review time, editor rejected our manuscript although the other reviewer was very positive and the other reviewer recommended only minor changes. Rejection is not a problem, however, ten months delay caused by an average impact journal is unacceptable.
Motivation:
After the minor revision was submitted, it took six weeks.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
Motivation:
Currently the journal has a huge backlog. Very good in all other aspects.
Motivation:
Christiane Tretter: IEOT is facing constantly high submission numbers and we are thus forced to a strong selection of papers that we may consider.
Motivation:
initial reviewer: ... not appropriate for a highly selective journal such as Proceedings of the AMS. Probably this should be published in a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
The Journal review process is very fast and the Editorial Office is very helpful.
Motivation:
Bad quality of the reviewer's feedback. Even (and perhaps more importantly) when a manuscript is rejected, and specially after several months awaiting for their input, one would expect to find some valuable or constructive criticism in the reviewer's comments. This was not the case.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was quite slow (compared to previous reviews on sci-rev.org) due to the reviewers, and unlike some other journals they do not provide an estimated time frame for the first round. After acceptance, the Elsevier production office kept contacting me to ask for documents that I had previously uploaded, which caused further delays.
Motivation:
this is a very good journal about electromagnetics. it is very fast and very efficient. it is very easy to publish in this journal.
Motivation:
Very responsive and friendly editor, but I was disappointed in how long we had to wait for the second round of reviews.
Motivation:
My only complaint about this journal is the slow review process. Other than that, I feel that the editor and reviewers are very fair and great to work with.
Motivation:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "xxx" 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:
Although review process was very slow but reviewers comments significantly improved our manuscript.
Motivation:
First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn’t in his/hers expertise.
Motivation:
Of course, I recommend this journal if we can publish the paper in it, but I am not very satisfied with the response of the associate editor and two reviewers, because they all put forward the comments not really related to the species distribution models, which is the main approach of our paper. They gave me the feeling that all reviewers are not working on species distribution models, becasue their critics are about the data we used and the resolution we determine. But the time of the process seems ok that we can get the decision quickly.
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript and the initial process was very slow. I got periodic responses that appeared to be automatic form letters and/or that they were having trouble finding an academic editor and reviewers. Eventually I received a rejection. However that decision was based on the comments from 1 reviewer and it was apparent that the paper was not read, nor were the comments about the content of the submission nor were the reasons for rejection, logical. Consequently I appealed the decision. That was a mistake because it took an additional 7 months to get a decision. I would get periodic emails apologizing for the delays indicating that a decision would come soon. Eventually following numerous email exchanges, I demanded that a decision be made. A week later the paper was rejected based on the opinion of one reviewer.. Having published numerous papers over the years I was disappointed but can accept the decisions. However no paper should take 10 months from submission to final decision, and one would expect that if reviews come back that are poor themselves, an additional reviewer would be identified.
Motivation:
Yes, very detailed suggestions from reviewers, seem to be fair handling of our paper.
Motivation:
Fast decision.
Motivation:
The reviewers and the editor rejected our manuscript because they said it was missing a comparison with some alternative methods.
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,
It is true that we did not include the comparison with these alternative methods, but for a specific reason: because they were off-topic.
Completely not understandable.
Also, the journal website promises a fast review process of just 25 days from submission to the first notification, but actually they took 52 days to inform us about the outcome: the double expected days,