Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The staffs of journal were very kind people, help you especially if you are not English native. The journal has organized system from submission to publication. Qualified reviewers. Rapid decision by editor.
Motivation:
The editors were quick in finding reviewers and making decisions. The quality of the reviewer reports was moderate.
Motivation:
It took 36 weeks to receive a single review. The justification of lack of a second review was that the Associate editor was unable to get a response from Reviewer 2. Period of 36 weeks is likely sufficient to find an alternative second reviewer in the case of lack of response.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
Motivation:
It is a review
Motivation:
They could not use their own submission system. They missed our resubmission. They lost the additional materials we submitted. The quality of the reviews were not good.
Motivation:
we recognise the potential interest of your findings for specialists. However, I regret that we cannot conclude that the paper offers the sort of particularly striking new insights with far-reaching implications that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of the broad scientific readership of Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal.
Motivation:
Handling was extremely poor, with long times to allocate reviewers and for review. Manuscript was initially rejected, despite meeting the journal’s publication criteria; an appeal was successful. Review of the revised manuscript took 3 months.
Motivation:
Desk rejected very rapidly for poor fit. Questionable decision, but at least they were fast.
Motivation:
Overall this was a good experience, with the exception of the waiting times, which were a bit longer than expected. The editor was in general hands off (the ms was not in his field), but eventually helpful to deal with a particularly hostile reviewer.
Motivation:
The process was amazingly fast, even though the decision was not what I wanted. Some of the criticism was quite good.
10.9 weeks
26.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on March 25. On May 5th they asked me to send a graphical abstract. After I submitted that, the manuscript was sent for reviewers. So, I lost like 5 weeks. Support staff was helpful, but they couldn't do anything with the delay.
Motivation:
I received a rapid desk reject because the editor thought the contribution was not strong enough for a journal of this calibre. Hard to take, but the editor gave some helpful pointers, including suggestions for some good quality journals that he thought might accept the work. Moreover, he gave me very good quality feedback on the manuscript, including one that I found extremely helpful in making revisions. So, though the outcome was disappointing, I consider it a positive one overall.
Motivation:
Long review time.