Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It took them 4 weeks to find an editor and another two weeks to find external reviewers. The reviewers' comments were relatively straightforward and useful; it was also evident that the reviewers had a profound understanding of the subject. However, the whole process from submission to rejection was delayed (which the editor apologized for in an email) and took almost 3 months. This was unnecessarily drawn out.
Motivation:
Peer review at this journal was a joke. It consisted of six numbered, vague statements: about the title, not using first person narrative, and other comments completely outside the scope of the paper. Luckily, the paper had received a lot of helpful feedback prior to publishing with AJPS. Sadly I think we realized too late this journal is probably predatory (see the publisher Scientific Research Publishing, which routinely changes domains). Fee is $999.
Motivation:
I think it is very important to get the right reviewers!
Motivation:
Reviewers suggested minor revisions that helped clarify the manuscript. Overall, a very good experience.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and painless.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround from editor. We felt time to resubmit was quite short given author availability so soon after the festive period but we managed this OK.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Motivation:
The formatting requirements for the journal are somewhat onerous, and would make me hesitate before submitting there again (e.g. strict limitations on number of figures with no option for supplementary materials, unusual format for figures, integrated results/discussion sections). However, the review process was relatively speedy and requests from the editors were reasonable. The editors were diplomatic about reviewer comments deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
Motivation:
Response time was great considering the need to optimize researchers time. Also the comment was specific stating that the manuscript topic was outside the scope of the Journal.
Motivation:
Fast review by the editorial team and the communication was great.
Motivation:
The peer-review process was very rapid. we received a minor revision and upon on resubmitting, we received acceptance after 5 days.
Motivation:
Rather quick process but review reports lacking.
Motivation:
The time of the overall management of the article was extremely long.
Motivation:
The manuscript stayed 30 days under evaluation and it was rejected since the topic was not broad enough to the journal. In the rejection, they mentioned that their contacted Nature medicine editors and they suggested the transference to that journal.
Motivation:
Although we submitted right before the New year holidays, I would not have expected such a long waiting time before an editorial rejection with a response as general as the following: "The findings are interesting and will be of interest and use to your field. However, for the paper to be a strong candidate for the very broad readership of Cell Reports there would need to be a greater conceptual advance over previous work, with clear new biological insight."
Even this response was yielded after a follow-up email directly to the editor!
Even this response was yielded after a follow-up email directly to the editor!
Motivation:
The overall experience was quick and painless. The editor felt that our work was interesting but too many experiments would have been required to answer to the reviewers comments. We regret the outright rejection and the impossibility to answer to the reviewers criticisms as most of them could have been addressed through a detailed response.
Motivation:
For the first review, the editor sent our article to two reviewers. One of the reviewers recommended minor revision while another reviewer recommended reject. then, the editor sent our article to the third reviewer for final recommendation. The third reviewer requested major revisions. After resubmitting, we received a minor revision and then article was accepted.
Motivation:
Two positive reviews (one major R&R and one minor R&R). Editor still rejected paper with one sentence justification.
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Motivation:
Perfect Journal for quality review and rapid turn around time. My two papers have got accepted and published online within 6 months from the date of first submission.
Motivation:
Of the two, one reviewer failed to carry out the task effectively. The comments made it clear that the reviewer had not read the Manuscript/Supporting Information, yet the reviewer opted for rejection of the manuscript. The comments questioned many aspects of the manuscript which were in fact, explained to a great extent in the main paper and supporting information.
Motivation:
The editor desk-rejected our paper saying it was not a good fit for the journal, with no additional feedback. I sent a polite inquiry requesting some quick feedback as to why that was the case but to no avail. At least they didn't take the long to reject the paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers had fairly good knowledge about the field and raised comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editorial board was helpful during the submission process.
Quality of review was outstanding.
It takes time for acceptance
Quality of review was outstanding.
It takes time for acceptance
Motivation:
We had two reviewers, one of which was expert in the field and required several reanalysis, while another was a bit superficial but pointed out simple mistakes and unclear texts in the manuscript. Both reviewers were truly helpful for us to improve our manuscript.
Motivation:
Way too long for immediate rejection
Motivation:
Rejected because it did not fit the scope of the journal.