Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I did not agree with their reasoning for the manuscript not being a good fit. I thought it should have at least been sent out for review. However, I am grateful for the quick process with which it was rejected, which allowed me to send it to a new journal
Motivation:
The reviewers of my manuscript were very helpful, and I believe they provided me with good feedback. However, I was very disappointed in the review process because the editor rejected my manuscript after two rounds of resubmission based on what could be considered "fatal flaws" present in the first review round. I believe the manuscript was handled unprofessionally, and it would have been better for the editor to reject the manuscript outright. Instead, my manuscript spent a year being revised and resubmitted and under review with nothing to show for it.
Motivation:
After submitting my manuscript to the Natural Resources Forum, I received a revise and resubmit with comments from 7 reviewers. It was a very long process to revise the paper in a way that dealt with the concerns of all 7 reviewers who were focused on very different aspects of the paper.
After re-submission, I received a second round of comments from 6 of the 7 reviewers. The majority commented on how well I had dealt with the first round of comments and many said it was ready for publication or just needed a few final edits. While this process was certainly longer and more intense that normal, I do believe a better paper emerged out of it and that is great.
I finally received a decision from the editor simply reading "I found the contribution of the paper hard to identify. The article could be better articulated and focused. Therefore, we will not pursue publication of the article in the Journal." They did not reference the revisions or any specifics about the paper after almost 1 year of work from me and seven reviewers. The decision read as though it was a desk rejection, even though the paper had been through 2 rounds of revise and resubmit. Upon my asking for more detailed information about why there was a rejection decision, my email was ignored. I would not recommend this journal to anyone purely for the way the editorial staff has conducted themselves.
After re-submission, I received a second round of comments from 6 of the 7 reviewers. The majority commented on how well I had dealt with the first round of comments and many said it was ready for publication or just needed a few final edits. While this process was certainly longer and more intense that normal, I do believe a better paper emerged out of it and that is great.
I finally received a decision from the editor simply reading "I found the contribution of the paper hard to identify. The article could be better articulated and focused. Therefore, we will not pursue publication of the article in the Journal." They did not reference the revisions or any specifics about the paper after almost 1 year of work from me and seven reviewers. The decision read as though it was a desk rejection, even though the paper had been through 2 rounds of revise and resubmit. Upon my asking for more detailed information about why there was a rejection decision, my email was ignored. I would not recommend this journal to anyone purely for the way the editorial staff has conducted themselves.
Motivation:
The editorial decision took quite long. However, the decision letter was very detailed and informative.
Motivation:
Generic recommendation to submit to specialty journal. Not sure if they read carefully, as the suggested journals / journal topics were not relevant for the manuscript.
Motivation:
Firstly, I would like to underline that the time was very long. Indeed, I remember that the review process by the reviewers took less than one month but the manuscript stayed a very long time before and after with the editor (4 months in total !).
Secondly, if it really was a problem of scope why sending it to reviewers (wasting their time, and mine at the same time), and taking so long to make this decision ?
Finally, one of the review was positive (with few changes that we've done since) but the second one was not really constructive.
Secondly, if it really was a problem of scope why sending it to reviewers (wasting their time, and mine at the same time), and taking so long to make this decision ?
Finally, one of the review was positive (with few changes that we've done since) but the second one was not really constructive.
Motivation:
The process overall was excellent, but the reviews took a lot of time.
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers seemed to be experts and considerded also the details of the manuscript (for instance an incorrect index of a variable). The process was fast and uncomplicated.
Motivation:
The review system is speedy. This is helpful for the authors.
Motivation:
Overall, I was happy with the whole process. The only downside was that one of the reviewers clearly did not read the manuscript properly, but simply wrote a few lines with general questions (which were all answered in the manuscript upon closer reading). The other 2 reviewers' comments were useful however, and the editor also read the manuscript, so it was compensated for.
Motivation:
the revision process was good, It took 4 month for acceptance. But I found a problem in proof-editing.
Motivation:
The review period was too long (almost 6 months) and the editor decided to reject the paper, even having only minor revisions from the two reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were so severe, but excellent that our manuscript has been improved by their comments. We appreciate the reviewers for their efforts to improve our manuscript.
Motivation:
The review system of Oncotarget is so speedy. This is so helpful for the authors.
Motivation:
After a initial review the paper was a reject and resubmit. I took the reviews seriously and resubmitted in about 6 weeks. The reviews were gery helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was quick, however two of the reviewers were tightly affiliated with each other and the third was from the same field, which we felt was strange since our work is at the interface of two independent topics. The rejection decision was mainly based on the reviewing editors view.
Motivation:
Both editor-in-chief and associate editor along with 2 reviewers made important contributions to the manuscript. The review reports were of high quality. The only drawback was a bit long review speed, but overall I would send another manuscript to this journal in the future.
Motivation:
Very courteous and helpful editor. 10/10 would submit again to this journal.
Motivation:
The whole process took a reasonable time (a bit more than 6 months) and review quality was good and improved the manuscript. I appreciate that the journal is also asking to improve the paper visibility by adding an image and a blog post.
Motivation:
The editors at this journal are lovely and helpful with good constructive advise. However the whole process takes too long overall compared to other journals and so while I have enjoyed publishing in this journal (four times now) I will likely try elsewhere with my papers next time, for a quicker result.
Motivation:
The status update on the website was slow but the editorial office responds swiftly.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
Motivation:
Quick rejection with a short, but understandable reasoning.
Motivation:
The editor requested three reports to my paper. The usual procedure is two, but originaly the journal received two conflicting reports. Although my paper was formaly reject in the first round, the editor was clear enough, in the communicating letter, that they would be happy to reconsider my work after revision and that the new version would be sent to the original reviewers.