Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No further comments. Excelent peer-review process.
Motivation:
The overworked Editor had clearly not either carefully read or understood the manuscript. The rejection letter stated that the manuscript addresses something. However, in reality it addresses something quite different. I don't think is a result of bad writing because I had the manuscript read by scientists from other disciplines and they said that the title, introduction, results and abstract would be enjoyed even by science undergrads. An earlier manuscript of mine rejected here in 3 days but was published at a very prestigious journal, with great reviews. It is not an accident that the overall rating of this journal is ranked at 3.1/5, which is very bad compared to its peer Science Advances. And of course as everyone has stated, there is a lot of delay even for immediate rejections.
Motivation:
Editorial feedbacks were prompt, succinct, reasonable and courteous. Any time lapses may have been due to reviewer lags and schedules which editors might not be in control of.
Would be good for the journal to allow at least an extra figure and one extra table
Would be good for the journal to allow at least an extra figure and one extra table
Motivation:
The overall review process was extremely fast. One reviewer gave minor revision (without further review) and the other gave outright acceptance. I will consider this journal to publish my main works.
Motivation:
I contacted the editor and co-editors many times but they did not reply. After 7 months from the submission, the manuscript was in a virtual drawer without any consideration. After that I asked some updated news, a co-editor asked me not to withdraw the manuscript. After 11 months from the submission and many attempts to receive some information about the status of my manuscript, again I didn't receive any reply so I withdraw the manuscript and I Lost 11 months. I want to share this experience with other researchers, so they will know what they can receive back. Springer apologized for my very bad experience and the Springer support delegate was very supportive even if nothing could be done against the lack of communication from the editor and co-editors
Motivation:
Timely turn around, which I appreciate. It just didn't work out for us on this one.
Motivation:
Took 1.5 months for a direct rejection. Sad. Journal says 2018 review time was 3-4 weeks. Laughable
Motivation:
Excellent all round. Considered and useful reviewer and editorial comments improved the paper. We alo really appreciated the effort made by the copy editor to make sure everything was as clear as possible.
Motivation:
the reviewing senior editor seemed to have conflicts of interest with our paper. the manuscript were held for four weeks before he rejected it. No clear reason is provided, considering such a long period in editorial office.
Motivation:
Rejection was not explained though the review was a positive one. Only one review in a long period.
Motivation:
The review process took quite a while, but it was a contribution to a special issue and I had the feeling that the journal editor worked well with external reviewers and special issue guest editors. The reviews I received were very helpful and I was supported by the guest editors in the revision process.
Motivation:
The whole submitting process is transparent and our manuscript was processed efficiently. The reviews we received were critical but very helpful in improving our manuscript. We invest much effort to revise the manuscript and the decision was received in a short time.
Motivation:
The editor was very helpful (and very quick in reply!) and the reviewers were very insightful and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took 20 weeks, which is too long to go without some sort of explanation. We were then asked for two separate revisions to address the same issue. We addressed it to the very best of our ability in the first rebuttal-- there was no need for a second R&R to be issued, after which the paper was still rejected. It's unfortunate that the editor tied up the paper for over 9 months. I do not think the second revision yielded any sort of substantive progress or constructive feedback.
Motivation:
This was the worst experience in my 20-year science career. First of all, it took 2 months for the editor to find reviewers. Second, it took 1-2 weeks to pass initial quality check after every submission. Third, the editor emailed my co-author to review the manuscript by mistake. You are kidding me! (this is funny but this shouldn't happen). Obviously, the editor didn't check the manuscript carefully. Finally, most of reviewers comments were really picky. After the revision, one reviewer accepted but the other reviewer didn't believe our comments in the rebuttal letter and asked us to carry out more experiments. Then, the editor rejected without providing us reasonable reasons! I will never send my manuscripts to Scientific Reports. This is by far the worst journal ever!
Motivation:
While the review process itself took a legitimate amount of time, after the automatic system indicated that reviews were received, the manuscript remained in the 'awaiting CE decision' for almost two months. We believe that this is unacceptable and delayed our re-submission to another journal for no good reason.
Motivation:
In the first round we had enthusiastic comments from 2 reviewers and suggestions for basic minor revisions. Editor encouraged revisions ( "we see real strengths in your manuscript") and after revisions both the two reviewers accepted the paper. However the editor decided to not publish the paper, denied to send us the referee reports for the revised manuscript ("The reviewers recommended acceptance of your resubmitted manuscript" is the only thing I was allowed to know). Adduced reasons were, in my opinion, insignificant and surely tardive!
Basically I, my co-author and the two reviewers wasted our time!!! .
Basically I, my co-author and the two reviewers wasted our time!!! .
Motivation:
Very fast turnaround, very constructive and helpful reviewer comments, overall a great experience.
Motivation:
The reviewer sided with the reviewer who voted rejection, whose feedback was cruel and not aimed at helping our paper, and ignored the review that called the paper "a valuable contribution."
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 364.8 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The review process at this journal was frustrating. First, we haven't heard back from the journal for more than 6 months. When we contacted the journal, we were told that our manuscript has not been sent out to reviewers yet because they were not able to identify suitable reviewers (note: the paper is not on a rare, very specific topic), and asked if we can suggest potential reviewers. We did. After which were told that they would get back to us once the reviews are in in about 2 months. They never did. After writing another email to the journal and waiting for a reply for several weeks, we were notified that the reviewers we had suggested were dropped from their system because the reviewers did not submit a review within the given time (1 month?). At that point our manuscript had been with JOPR for more than 10 months but had not been reviewed yet. We requested to withdraw our paper from JOPR so we could submit it elsewhere, but haven't heard back from the journal office. We wrote several emails asking to withdraw the manuscript, to which they finally reacted, a month later. All in all, our manuscript has stayed with JOPR for a year, with no outcome at all.
Motivation:
The review process was fast.
Unfortunately, the editor rejected the paper immediately without even send the it to review.
But most of his/her criticisms about the manuscript were valid and idoneous to the topic.
Unfortunately, the editor rejected the paper immediately without even send the it to review.
But most of his/her criticisms about the manuscript were valid and idoneous to the topic.
Motivation:
I had a good experience with this journal
7.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The nomenclature reviewer made us change the name of the bacteria 3 times. At each of the 4 review rounds the editor and the reviewers asked us new experiments/analysis. We all would have saved a lot of time and frustration if all the additional work was asked for at the first round of review. The editor and one of the reviewer confuse type-setting and reviewing. For exemple, the last round of review consisted in putting the abstract in one paragraph instead of two and putting one bacterial name in italic in a figure.
Motivation:
Quick review process, overall constructive and positive feedback