Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.7 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The process was pretty fast. However, the sent work received an unconventional number of revisions. Specifically, 4 reviewers did the work. Their decisions were: "minor revision", two "major revision" and one "reject". The editor decided to reject the paper without the possibility to dialogue with the reviewers or address any problem of the paper.
Motivation:
The reviewer chosen by a journal had no idea about a research topic he reviewed. The sentences in the review revealed a total ignorance of reviewer in the matter of research topic.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers gave helpful feedback that improved the paper
Motivation:
The reviewer commented that the results are over-interpreted and the conclusions are not supported by data. However, the reviewer didn't offer reason.
Motivation:
The speed of the manuscript handling was exceptional. Both reviewers had important criticisms of the paper, but neither recommended rejecting the paper. However, R2 said that the results were "unsurprising" and this put up a red flag for the editor, who said Ecology Letters can only accept the most innovative and novel papers, and that "unsurprising" results were insufficient.
Motivation:
The report I received was very timely, critical, to the point and clear. The comments made by the reviewer improved considerably my paper. Moreover, from the comments, suggestions and criticisms, it was very clear that the reviewer is an expert in the field. I am extremely satisfied with the whole process, in particular with the way the editor Adrian Constantin handled my paper. In a nutshell, it was an excellent experience.
Motivation:
We had two reviewers for this paper. One was very good but the other seemed to understand little about the analysis and have read almost nothing in the subject area, as was clear from his/her comments. Yet this reviewer was given a lot of weight in the review process by the editor. This paper was part of a special issue where I was co-author on a number of other papers. My experience with these other papers was similar. The choice of reviewers was baffling for the most part. The other papers in this issue went through very quickly (though compromising the review quality in my opinion), while this one was very slow but still lacking in review quality.
Motivation:
"overall conclusions fall short of providing the kind of robust conceptual advance and new biological insights that would make the paper a strong candidate for this journal"
Motivation:
The comments by both reviewers were very helpful and the editors provided us with clear points to address in our revision.
Motivation:
We received three reports from three reviewers. Two of them were knowledgeable commenting on the topic and asked for minor changes that all were addressed in the 1st round review. The 3rd reviewer described him/her self as "informed about the topic but never publish in the topic". The 3rd reviewer was dismissive of everything. His main comment was approved mathematically wrong.
We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments.
We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision.
Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final
We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments.
We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision.
Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final
Motivation:
I was told there were 4 reviewers. Only one wrote more than a phrase, but he had the thesis backward, so I don’t know how closely he read it. Another wrote only “same as comments to editor” which was not provided to me even on request. Nothing was said about how to change or improve the article.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was mixed: one favourable and one against. The one against was poorly written and misunderstood the nature of the paper showing to be a rushed work.
We answered explaining point by point why we did what.
The second round of reviews discounted our answers and the new reviewers sidelined with the first negative reviewer without taking in account our responses to the first negative reviewer. The favourable reviewer had been removed by the reviewing team while the first negative reviewer was retained in the reviewing team. It was a lengthy and unfair process, there was no engagement on part of the reviewers or the editors with our answers to first round negative reviewer's criticism.
We answered explaining point by point why we did what.
The second round of reviews discounted our answers and the new reviewers sidelined with the first negative reviewer without taking in account our responses to the first negative reviewer. The favourable reviewer had been removed by the reviewing team while the first negative reviewer was retained in the reviewing team. It was a lengthy and unfair process, there was no engagement on part of the reviewers or the editors with our answers to first round negative reviewer's criticism.
Motivation:
In my opinion, a better better approach would be to reject the paper straight away than spend several months revieweing it (one reviewer was assigned), with the outcome of the review process being one short paragraph. At least, not for a journal that seeks to achieve prominence in the field.
Motivation:
The editor and 2 out of 3 reviewers did an amazing job. Especially one reviewer has been extremely careful and significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. The third reviewer, however, has constantly been late, has sent very approximate reviews (that shown that he/she did not read the manuscript carefully) and ultimately dropped out the reviewing process, after having caused a tremendous delay.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to too many submissions, even though my paper went through a positive first round of reviews.
Motivation:
As per my knowledge, the majority number of review reports are positive then they are willing to publish. But in this case, the editor is claiming that they need all (in my case 3 review reports) reviewers should give positive (instead of majority reports) to proceed further for the acceptance of the work to publish.
It is very strange!!!!!
It is very strange!!!!!
Motivation:
After 10 months review time, editor rejected our manuscript although the other reviewer was very positive and the other reviewer recommended only minor changes. Rejection is not a problem, however, ten months delay caused by an average impact journal is unacceptable.
Motivation:
After the minor revision was submitted, it took six weeks.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
I do not know why it took so long time to evalucate our minor revisions.
Motivation:
Currently the journal has a huge backlog. Very good in all other aspects.
Motivation:
Christiane Tretter: IEOT is facing constantly high submission numbers and we are thus forced to a strong selection of papers that we may consider.
Motivation:
initial reviewer: ... not appropriate for a highly selective journal such as Proceedings of the AMS. Probably this should be published in a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
The Journal review process is very fast and the Editorial Office is very helpful.
Motivation:
Bad quality of the reviewer's feedback. Even (and perhaps more importantly) when a manuscript is rejected, and specially after several months awaiting for their input, one would expect to find some valuable or constructive criticism in the reviewer's comments. This was not the case.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was quite slow (compared to previous reviews on sci-rev.org) due to the reviewers, and unlike some other journals they do not provide an estimated time frame for the first round. After acceptance, the Elsevier production office kept contacting me to ask for documents that I had previously uploaded, which caused further delays.