All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Overall duration of the process unacceptable. Quality of the process highly debatable.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.

Motivation: This journal has high standards for the quality of the paper. The remarks from the reviewers were relevant. Thanks to their constructive remarks, there was an big improvement of the manuscript. To my experience, I recommend totally this journal and hope they will maintain their standards.

Motivation: I had a positive review experience with IEEE sensors journal in 2014.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.

Motivation: The final round of reviews took several weeks, and I had to contact the editor regarding the amount of time. I was told that he/she was unable to reach the reviewers, possibly because of strikes happening in the UK at the time. Aside from the long time it took to receive reviews I was pleased with the comments I received and the treatment of my paper.

Motivation: The review process is too long compared to other journals.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.

Motivation: 1st decision was quite late and only after I asked about it. We were asked to make only few changes, the first review was very positive. Nevertheless, the 2nd decision took again quite long and was received only after I asked about it. Surprisingly, three new reviewers had got our article. Again, all reviews were very positive. Summary: Much too long time for only few changes asked.

Motivation: The reviewers were fair.
The Journal was quick in all procedures.

Motivation: "we do not feel that the paper contains sufficient new or novel information to assign a high enough priority score in this area"

Motivation: One reviewer very positive, the other thought wasn't interesting enough. Member editor agreed with latter, and also seemed to incorrectly think similar work had been done. I pointed this out to editor, but got a canned response that PNAS can't provide additional feedback.

Motivation: This journal goes for short, preliminary reviews before going for a full one. This preliminary reviewing process is fast and that's good. IMO the journal seems to be biased against some areas. The journal officially boasts to be of certain standard which is very much doubtful.

Motivation: This was my first journal paper during my doctoral studies. And, possibly, that's why review process and revisions required good amount of time and efforts from me. Reviewer's comments were very helpful.

Motivation: I have given the manuscript an initial assessment and concluded that its contents and methods do not really mach those proposed in the Scope of this journal.

Motivation: The article has been showing "Editor Assigned" for the last six months without being sent to reviewers. After waiting for six months, we contacted the editor who sent a mail to somebody in the springer editorial office requesting to know the status. Nobody replied and its been two weeks, therefore, request for withdrawal was made.

Its disappointing to see a large number of deadbeat journals like these in springer publishing which take almost 2 years to publish (going by their latest online papers) due to lack of interest by editors and reviewers alike. Springer Nature should really "review" these journals for removal/improvement.

Motivation: I received two reports: one very positive, constructive and to the point. The other, very negative, agressive and offensive, and with vague words about the paper itself. After the decision was communicated, I wrote to the editor-in-chief, saying that the negative report was extremely rude and not technica. He then asked me to write a rebuttal letter and he would then send my letter and the manuscript to an adjuticator. This third reviewer made a positive report of our results, but recommended rejection saying that the problem which we were considering was more theoretical and not necessarily related to nonlinear problems coming from real problems. Although I read in this journal papers not necessarily coming from real problems, I can accept this argument. Overall, my opinion about the whole process was positive.

Motivation: The review process took a resonable time, the reports we received were very technical and coherent. The editor was quick in each step of the process.