Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One reviewer recommends accepted, while a second reviewer recommended a rejection. According to reviews, Associate Editor decided to reject the paper.
8.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My overall experience is good with this journal. The journal gave enough chance to revise the manuscript. Satisfied with the overall process.
Motivation:
It seems that it took a bit long to send the manuscript to an associate editor (2 weeks). However, the associate editor was really fast about it.
Motivation:
The editorial assistance at CHSOC was excellent, the editorial work as well. The reviews were all useful and insightful.
Motivation:
It took 71 days to reach a decision.
Motivation:
our manuscript get rejected with no specific reasons. It really is a bad experience. I suggest not wasting time on this journal if you are not famous enough in your field.
Motivation:
very fast decision with several reasons and suggestions, this is really helpful
Motivation:
NAR receives far more manuscripts than it can consider for publication, and therefore all submissions are subjected to preliminary review by Executive Editors to assess their suitability for the journal. Detailed peer reviews are then sought for only a fraction of the manuscripts submitted. All manuscripts are evaluated relative to other recent submissions. In this case, I appreciate the effort that went into your research and the preparation of this manuscript. However, NAR prioritizes studies that focus on obtaining deep insights into molecular mechanism. Your manuscript has a broad focus and is primarily descriptive, making it more appropriate for a journal with a different specialization.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
Motivation:
Journal editorial process was discourteous and unprofessional in handling my manuscript in a timely manner to promote findings towards publication. The editorship took an unreasonably long time to produce reviews and allowed a number of unsubstantiated, tangential reviews to be submitted. Also, unclear guidance was provided in terms of editing that provided little direction and contradictory instructions. Overall, a poor performance of editorship and scholarly peer review process characterized my experience at JHCPU.
Motivation:
The editorial office does not answer emails and made devastating mistakes along the way. I have probably submitted 70 manuscripts in my career, this is by far the worst experience. Ended up withdrawing the paper due to the journal's incompetence.
Motivation:
A total review time of 5.5 months seems unreasonable (our editing contributed about 1 month to this). When the first round of edits are purely editorial, one might expect that the AE would make the call at that point rather than sending the manuscript out for a second round. When the second round of reviews consists of one review with comments that were addressed in under an hour by a find-and-replace and the addition of a single line to the text such that the manuscript was resubmitted within hours of receiving the "reviews", the AE should certainly make the call at that point. When the third round of reviews consist of no comments, one might start to wonder about the purpose of the second and third rounds of review. Personally, I started wondering if our bacteria had evolved since the initial submission, and were no longer considered part of the genus.
The one positive was that the invoice arrived in my inbox days after acceptance. Incredibly efficient! Well done, PLoS One.
The one positive was that the invoice arrived in my inbox days after acceptance. Incredibly efficient! Well done, PLoS One.
Motivation:
My experience and the experiences of several other collaborators with the REVIEW process of Cell Reports is not very promising. Even though the Editorial Board seems to be motivated to handle the manuscript fast, the indicated time window on cell reports homepage is not very realistic. They need at least twice as much time for everything. At least two more colleagues stated similar experiences. You should also take into account that 2-3 rounds of revisions are not rare even though cell reports officially claims this would be unusual. At least in my case the first round of revisions was very helpful but the follwing rounds were just time consuming and not very helpful in my opinion. In summary, you may submit your manuscript to another journal.
Motivation:
The process was very long and communication was limited. Although the time to the first revision was still acceptable, and revisions were helpful and important, the time it took after that was not reasonable.
Motivation:
Our reviewers were experts in this field, and we received high-quality reports. The editorial office provided quick responses.
53.3 weeks
53.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Our paper was transferred from Science Translational Medicine. That helped make the review process faster at Science Immunology. But still, I feel quite happy about the way this manuscript was handled at SI.
Motivation:
The editorial and review processes were handled most professionally, and the quality of the three reviews and the associate editor's comments was high. The time to the first decision, whilst rather lengthy, was appropriate given the length and complexity of the paper.
Motivation:
Initial submission was fine - took them a while until we heard back but not too bad. First round of reviews was fine too, criticisms were appropriately formulated. After revising, it took them quite a long time to give us an update which was the "fear period" it won't be accepted after all the effort (which it then did fortunately).
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and fairly quick. The editor and the reviewers provided useful comments. The editor respected that we decided not to address few of his/her requests.
Motivation:
The review process was good. The two reports from the reviewers were actually useful. The editor provided some useful feedback, and everything went on quite smoothly.
Motivation:
I was given the option to transfer my submission to ACS Omega, but declined the opportunity.