Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The handling of submitted manuscripts by the journal was extremely too poor. The manuscript kept pending with the editor without sending for review nor making a decision whether to accept or reject even after several months of inquiry.
Motivation:
The process took too long.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments suggest that reviewers didn't read the article thoroughly, and possibly skipped the whole Supplementary Information file.
Motivation:
My opinion is negative because of the time they took to give me the answer: two months to assign the handling editor, then they sent the ms for revision, and the answer arrived almost in three months.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow and there was no reply to my follow up emails during that process. There is no official information about review time as well.
Motivation:
All feedback from the referees was very useful. One of the reports included a comprehensive list of comments to be addressed, and although they took work to implement, the revised manuscript came out much stronger and clearer than its initial version. The reviewing process was very efficient, the referees were helpful, and the whole process was extremely fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Even though IJHMT is highly prestigious journal in heat transfer field, the first review round took so long (approx. 5.5 moths). Also, the quality of the reviews sent us was not so good. The manuscript became more solid after revision, but I guess we expected more qualified comments. After all, the period after editorial decision was very quick and satisfied. If the review period is managed more strictly, the journal will become perfect.
Motivation:
The ms was immediately rejected however I was really impressed that it took the editors only one day and the reasons for rejection were explained. Definitely, the editor had read the paper.
Motivation:
Very poor peer review process indeed.
Motivation:
The editorial process was professional and efficient - the reviewers gave important and insightful comments quickly and the editor was extremely responsive. I also think the presubmission inquiry is a very good way to test the waters without investing everything in one go and having to make substantial changes in formatting after a desk rejection. A wonderful reviewing experience.
Motivation:
Submitting process was not clear, online system kept asking for forms that were not required and inefficient response from the editorial assistance on the process and system and finally poor time frame for an immediate rejection
Motivation:
After almost 6 months from the initial submission, editors told me that they didn't find referees for the mandatory review process. It was weird because the topic fits quite well in journal. Anyway, if you have a few time you'll realise that journal is full of papers developed by spanish/latin america authors.
Motivation:
We have had a mostly positive experience submitting to Scientific Reports, considering the short initial review process and the subsequent revisions. The only downside is how picky the journal is with regards to the "Quality Check" as we had to resubmit several times following the first round of revision due to files going missing from the system in the process and one file not being noticed by the editorial staff (not very professional). But an overall speedy and hassle-free process.
18.3 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
It was a great experience - editorial handling and review time was extremely fast, reviews were useful and reasonable, and we had the paper online within about 3 months of initial submission!
Motivation:
After 3 months of no contact, I got feedback from 1 reviewer that was only 4 sentences that simply restated what was in the manuscript abstract. Apparently the other reviewer's comments had been admitted. The review was shallow and the editors gave a stock explanation for rejection saying: "Although we recognize that you might be able address many of the criticisms noted in the reviews, the overall nature of the comments is such that we believe that the manuscript would not make the final cut for publication."
Motivation:
Quick, shallow rejection from the editors
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected 3 months after the submission. Both reviewers agreed that the manuscript was not within the scope of the Journal of College Student Development. I respect that, but determining the suitability of a manuscript and whether it falls within the scope of a journal is the responsibility of the editorial office. Also, the determining the suitability does not usually take more than a couple weeks (compared to 3 months).