Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Four months after submitting the manuscript I emailed the editorial office to aks for an update. They answered that they had only received 1 peer review and asked for additional potential reviewers. I suggested a few, but the manuscript was rejected the same day, based on 1 review.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted, but then took 4 months to be published. Asking us to cite other papers post acceptance and discussions about press releases, massively hindered publication. They were slow to respond to our concerns but frequently gave ridiculous deadlines (<24hrs) to respond to them. They pride themselves on being open access and speedy publication. This was not the case for us. Overall a very unprofessional experience and a huge delay.
Motivation:
When you see other articles dealing with related topic" being "sufficiently striking advance to justify publication, you wonder on the biased editorial comments; they (editorial board) obviously didn't have time to come across the content.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers enjoyed the paper and suggested publication. The second reviewer was obviously uncomfortable with statistics and did not understand the study design, however they never said to reject the paper. A different reviewer should have been chosen. It felt that the editor never read the paper and strongly guided by one reviewer and not the other.
Motivation:
Specialized journal. Reasonable delays.
Motivation:
an alternative explanation for the data was briefly given, ruling the paper uninteresting for publication
Motivation:
The most useful, efficient, and even pleasurable, review and publication process I have been involved in so far. Really impressed by this journal and look forward to submitting to JEB in the future. I especially want to highlight that the post acceptance publishing/ proofing editors were very friendly, quick and meticulous. I am very impressed by the whole experience.
Motivation:
The editor was amazing! Handled the manuscript very professionally. Took the comments of the reviewers seriously but also took initiative. Very good experience.
Motivation:
The decision said that the MS cannot be considered for peer review in its present form, because it does not fit with journal’s format rules.
They required reduction in the cited references(from 79 to max50), reduction the number of figures and tables. We thought that such a truncation of reference list and illustration materials would lead to a diminution of the scientific value of the study, so we looked for another journal for the next submission.
They required reduction in the cited references(from 79 to max50), reduction the number of figures and tables. We thought that such a truncation of reference list and illustration materials would lead to a diminution of the scientific value of the study, so we looked for another journal for the next submission.
Motivation:
During the first and second round of reviewing, the original files were changed by editor on tracking system. This maybe helpful for paper production but will be ignored by authors if they forget to update from tracking system.
Motivation:
it responds very quickly and is also indexed by many indices.
Motivation:
Fast reviewing process
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
Motivation:
Short time of revision. High quality reviewers
Motivation:
The editors took so much time to take decisions, even though the changes requested by the reviewers were relatively simple. Overall, the paper sat for more than one month on the editor's desk. In addition, just after the first submission, the editor asked a member of our lab (who had only published with co-authors of the submitted paper) to act as a reviewer. Of course, our colleague rejected the invitation because of the conflict of interests.
Motivation:
I had mentioned in my cover letter that I needed things to move fast due to the tenure process and this is what occurred. They made the decision to send out for initial review in one day. The reviews we received reflected a very careful reading of the manuscript and a very constructive response focused on how improve it even further. The consultative process helped keep the number of changes requested to a manageable level within the eight weeks they aim for for revision. The reviews came up with suggestions as to how to textually address two of the five essential points if we could not carry out the requested experiments. The review of the revision just requested a few minor textual changes that greatly improved things further. The experience was exactly what I want from a scientific journal, it felt like a consultation among scientists who were focused on substance, not on arbitrarily delaying us or pursuing some pet idea unrelated to our original intentions.
Motivation:
The editorial process was good and all queries were answered swiftly. One referee was three weeks overdue on their review, resulting in the lengthy revision process. Following the first round of revision, the predominant changes to be made were grammatical (British to American English), an aspect which I will be more aware of in future submissions.
Motivation:
I had a fantastic experience having my manuscript reviewed by Journal of Sex Research. The process moved very quickly, and I felt that I received helpful and insightful comments.
Motivation:
Excellent and relatively painless review process. Cost of publishing is high but articles will be open access.
Motivation:
Decision is very slow.
Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision.
There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response.
Furthermore, editorial office did not response to my e-mail considering delay of first decision.
There is no direct way to contact office. Just e-mail. I did not get any response.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and constructive comments were raised (2 reviewers, 5-6 questions each pertaining to addition of nomenclature table, suggestions to elaborate specific sections of paper in a certain way, formatting mistakes, in depth doubts with respect to material presented in paper etc). This was our first time publishing in a wiley energy journal other than Elsevier and the experience was better compared to the latter. Recommended journal.
11.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal provides excellent, professional, insightful, and critical comments and suggestions for the author and also handles the manuscript in a very efficient way. The author really appreciates all the time and effort of the reviewers and editors.
Motivation:
First and last experience with this journal. Every step in the process took a long time. The editor-in-chief (EIC) was clearly a major part of the problem. Sometimes the review comments were submitted but I had to wait for two or more weeks to receive the decision--which was literally sending the comments of the reviewer without any other addition.
Before submitting the article, I asked the journal and I was given a reasonable, estimated timeline to receive the final decision. but, it took almost more than three months for the journal to find a reviewer. The paper was finally reviewed by only one reviewer. The reviewer was also the least professional reviewer I've ever worked with. In the first round, we received some reasonable comments which were fully addressed. In the second round, which took a significant amount of time, the same reviewer picked some other parts of the article and provided completely new arguments that were not even helpful--didn't he read the article completely in the first round? These were parts that had no connections to his first comments.
We finally received the acceptance email on Oct 17 after three revisions. About a month later, there was still no single email from the journal about the next step and production... so given that by then I had learned that the journal is super slow in everything, I started to email the editorial office hoping to have a 2018 publication out of this work. The secretary sent contact info of two IEEE proofreaders handling the article. I emailed them, but almost a month later after many follow-up emails, they finally replied and said we have not received your paper as an accepted paper from the journal. Getting back to the EIC, it seems that he is first waiting to figure what issue they want to fit the paper in before moving forward with the production--and clearly the secretary had no clue whatsoever what the EIC was doing and who is responsible for the next step.
The only thing that I know now (Dec 1, 2018) is that the paper will not appear online in any form until they figure out the issue number! Seriously!? Most journals these days put the article online shortly after a proofreading with an in-press status. The EIC clarified that this will happen in 2019, but no specific date was given (remember, the paper received acceptance on Oct 17, 2018!).
Anyway, my first and last experience with this journal (and the IEEE family). Very unprofessional handling of a submission and lack of transparency and commitment from day one! Consider other venues for publishing your research.
Before submitting the article, I asked the journal and I was given a reasonable, estimated timeline to receive the final decision. but, it took almost more than three months for the journal to find a reviewer. The paper was finally reviewed by only one reviewer. The reviewer was also the least professional reviewer I've ever worked with. In the first round, we received some reasonable comments which were fully addressed. In the second round, which took a significant amount of time, the same reviewer picked some other parts of the article and provided completely new arguments that were not even helpful--didn't he read the article completely in the first round? These were parts that had no connections to his first comments.
We finally received the acceptance email on Oct 17 after three revisions. About a month later, there was still no single email from the journal about the next step and production... so given that by then I had learned that the journal is super slow in everything, I started to email the editorial office hoping to have a 2018 publication out of this work. The secretary sent contact info of two IEEE proofreaders handling the article. I emailed them, but almost a month later after many follow-up emails, they finally replied and said we have not received your paper as an accepted paper from the journal. Getting back to the EIC, it seems that he is first waiting to figure what issue they want to fit the paper in before moving forward with the production--and clearly the secretary had no clue whatsoever what the EIC was doing and who is responsible for the next step.
The only thing that I know now (Dec 1, 2018) is that the paper will not appear online in any form until they figure out the issue number! Seriously!? Most journals these days put the article online shortly after a proofreading with an in-press status. The EIC clarified that this will happen in 2019, but no specific date was given (remember, the paper received acceptance on Oct 17, 2018!).
Anyway, my first and last experience with this journal (and the IEEE family). Very unprofessional handling of a submission and lack of transparency and commitment from day one! Consider other venues for publishing your research.