Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Exact reason:
"Because your manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that while your paper will be of great interest to the field it is not one of the most competitive in terms of general interest."
"Because your manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that while your paper will be of great interest to the field it is not one of the most competitive in terms of general interest."
Motivation:
Reviews were excellent but the delay in process after submission was pathetic.
Motivation:
Clear instructions, manuscript was accepted with only a few modifications.
Motivation:
First of all it should be mentioned that the content of the manuscript covered a couple of different scientific fields. So it seemed to be very complicated for the journal to find the right editor dealing with the manuscript (within a few days three emails were sent informing about changes in the editor; in all cases the third editor was taken for further processing of the manuscript.
The reviewers comments were of good to very good quality and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the comments of the editor were of mainly low quality and didn´t help to improve the manuscript´s quality.
It was the third time I send an manuscript to JCLEPRO. At the first time I made very good experiences with this journal. However, the second time (which was the former version of the actual third submission) the manuscript was rejected by the editor without sending it to reviewers due to really weak aspects like wrong unit (not IUPEC), plural in keywords, vertical column headers instead of horizontal ones, header of the y-axes in a figure was shifted...
During the third trial the comments of editors (as shown) were of mainly low quality and the timeline between submission and first decision was nearly 5 months and that way very long. I personally reviewed a few manuscripts of the JCLEPRO and I got all the time a second email when three weeks intervall was finished. Most probably, the large time gap was not caused by the reviewers.
The reviewers comments were of good to very good quality and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the comments of the editor were of mainly low quality and didn´t help to improve the manuscript´s quality.
It was the third time I send an manuscript to JCLEPRO. At the first time I made very good experiences with this journal. However, the second time (which was the former version of the actual third submission) the manuscript was rejected by the editor without sending it to reviewers due to really weak aspects like wrong unit (not IUPEC), plural in keywords, vertical column headers instead of horizontal ones, header of the y-axes in a figure was shifted...
During the third trial the comments of editors (as shown) were of mainly low quality and the timeline between submission and first decision was nearly 5 months and that way very long. I personally reviewed a few manuscripts of the JCLEPRO and I got all the time a second email when three weeks intervall was finished. Most probably, the large time gap was not caused by the reviewers.
Motivation:
First review round was reasonably fast and reviews very very useful and from very competent reviewers. Second review round took some time, but the waiting until final decision after the second review was unnecessary long as there were only two minor changes to look through.
Motivation:
Only 1 reviewer report was provided along with the rejection letter. The reviewer comments mostly focused on the technical imperfection of the paper instead of the scientific significance/knowledge the paper bears. One of the exact comment from the reviewer sounds "The original idea of the paper is lackluster to be considered for publication in high impact journal like Nano Energy". The editor's decision based solely on a single reviewer's comments is unconvincing.
Motivation:
After the paper was accepted, it was put on hold fpr an additional 20 months (!!!) before being published. Prior to publication the editors all of a sudden requested anpther round of sunstantial papers, 12 months after the manuscript had been accepted.
Motivation:
The time for desk rejection was short (which was a good point), but comments, sent by editor have shown that he even did not read the paper completely! He was asking about some tests and references which were already in the paper! Although he had some good recommendations about the manuscript.
Motivation:
Swift peer-review process and response by the journal editorial office. The constructive suggestions provided by the reviewers have definitely helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review reports were excellent and very constructive. Interactive review is a very good way to address reviewers's concerns. I highly recommend this journal to fellow scientists.
Motivation:
A journal that decides that an article submitted wasn't in line with its scope after this manuscript has been reviewed for over 8 months, is poor
Motivation:
I was very satisfied with the review process. I had two reviewers, one very positive and one rather negative. The editor seemed to like the article and gave us a rejection with the chance to resubmit. The reviewer reports were good quality and although they required a large amount of work, the suggestions greatly improved the paper. We re-submitted and the paper was sent back to the initial reviewers who were both happy with the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. I was very happy with the handling, the speed, and the reviewer reports. The subject editor seems to evaluate papers objectively and I am happy that he/she was not dissuaded by the initial negative report of reviewer 2, but rather saw potential in the paper and gave us the chance to improve it. Nothing but good experiences with this journal.
Motivation:
it is a very good and very fast journal. the first round of review takes about 3 weeks only. we should indicate that there are 3 reviewers (two technical and the other one for improving the English text)
46.0 weeks
46.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Almost a year passed away from the initial submission and the two reviewers developed a superficial revision of the paper in 6/7 sentences. Furthermore, unfortunately and somehow they were contradictory. For instance, the 1st reviewer argue that "Professional native-speaker proofreading required!", instead the 2nd one pointed out that "Again, congratulations for the writing and structure of the paper. It is clear and well-done".
Motivation:
Received a useful desk rejection with extensive editorial comments.
Motivation:
Disappointing result but at least (unlike the other high-impact magazine) the immediate rejection was only one week (instead of several).
Motivation:
Quick review, the reviewers focused on important issues of the paper. Quick responses.
Motivation:
Some problem with review process. But overall rating is quite good.
Motivation:
Paper was rejected by the editor on the grounds that it was 'out of scope of this journal'. I was surprised by this; the article was on a topic that the journal publishes on regularly. They recommended that we transfer the manuscript to a journal of the ACS Applied series, which we declined, as our article had little to do with the subject of that journal.
Motivation:
Review process was very slow but reviewers were very kind.
Motivation:
The desk rejection time is disappointingly long.
Motivation:
One of the referees was constructive, but the other was not. I think we could answer to the questions&comments of this critical reviewer, however the editors didn't offered an opportunity for revision.
Motivation:
In our view, the manuscript improved substantially through the review process.
Motivation:
They say the article is interesting and well-crafted but too narrow. I do not fault their decision, but it strikes me as having taken too long to be communicated to me.
Motivation:
Although there were some basic misunderstandings by the referees, it was finally rejected with reasonable basis. The editor was fair and author friendly.
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted