Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A transferred manuscript which is supposed to reasonably decrease review time was unfortunately failed to get a handling editor for two months, unbelievably. Yet, after receiving a review, the manuscript had again stuck in the hands of the handling editor for more than two months because of the unavailability of additional reviewers. We tried to reach out to the editorial office to explain the situation but apologizing for the delay in all of our three communications was what we received. This is a very chilling and outrageous experience we have ever had. Submitting to this journal is waste of time.
Motivation:
Reasonable and helpful reviews, very responsive editors, and quick decision.
Motivation:
The review process was rapid and a statistical review also was done. Although we felt the editors were harsh in rejecting as the reviews were ambivalent
Motivation:
The editor acknowledged that it took longer than he thought was appropriate but that it was the reviewers fault (what else is new) and said he hoped it wouldn't put me off applying there in the future. The reviews had enough helpful parts in them that I am not displeased with having submitted it. Unfortunately, the 3rd review, which is what held up the entire process, didn't actually seem to read the paper properly (ie I don't see an interaction model, when they are clearly present in the tables).
Motivation:
Fast and thorough process - the editor gave feedback and suggested alternative journals.
Motivation:
My impression is that they were unable to find a reviewer willing to comment on the paper and were simply waiting until I get tired and withdraw the paper myself (they reminded me about the option after I pointed out to them the unusually long consideration time).
Motivation:
A bit long
Motivation:
Some edits suggested by the reviewers were useful, whilst other criticisms seemed somewhat unwarranted or largely opinion-based. The response from one of the two reviewers was quite lengthy but could have been improved by including more concise and constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
The editor's email was rudely phrased, especially since I was suggested by an editor to send it to this journal and the the reviews suggest the reviewers voted R&R. While not everything in the reviews was clear and some of it is impossible (ie creating new data), some helpful comments can be extracted. The time and the editor's attitude have put me off this journal though.
Motivation:
The editor was efficient and the reviewers' comments are reasonable and logical, which helped in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
This is a great journal and we enjoyed the smooth editorial process. We received considered and helpful reviewer and editorial comments. Note this was a 'Brief communication' article type which means review speed etc may be slightly faster than for regular articles.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviewer comments was overall helpful, but the process took very long with several review rounds.
Motivation:
The criticism of both reviewers were constructive and helpful in developing the manuscript further. The review process was short compared to other journals. So I have written a 'thank you' message to the editors, despite the rejection.
Motivation:
My impression is that they handle submitted papers very irresponsibly (first they send me a general rejection letter saying that the details are in a reviewer's report, but did not attach any report, and then (after I pointed it out) they send me another quick rejection letter saying that they did not find it interesting).
Motivation:
Labor History is very efficient for an A (ABDC)/Q1 (Scimago) journal. Reviews are rigorous yet handled quickly
Motivation:
It took almost three years to receive the first report. It looks like the reviewer simply forgot about the paper.
Motivation:
The editor was not very responsive. The manuscript state stayed at "Decision in progress" for weeks. Also, it took weeks before the manuscript was sent to reviewers (even regarding the revised manuscript).
Motivation:
Always competent and in time. Way to go!
Motivation:
In my view the editor is very active and the processing speed is very much satisfactory. However, the answer to the reviewers queries process were challenging. This is an awesome and trustworthy journal especially in the field of ceramics materials.
Motivation:
Decision was fast and even though an immediate rejection was decided we did not loose much time
Motivation:
Received very good reviews in the first round. The quality of paper improved after answering those questions. But, later one of the reviewers took around 5 months to respond back. Quite minor corrections were proposed.
Motivation:
The editorial team and reviewers moved very swiftly and my guess is that they could do so because the paper and journal offered a very good fit. They have a reputation for the type of articles I submitted and reviewers were quite well informed.
Motivation:
The review process was very long and the reviewer's criticisms do not improve the manuscript
Motivation:
Although it was an uneasy decision for us, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript after nearly 8 months of the lengthy review process. We have learned after withdrawal that the journal had a positive (considered for publication ) review from one of the reviewers. The second reviewer, however, has never sent his/her opinion on the revised manuscript (six months after submission, until withdrawal). We think that the journal had multiple options to deal with this situation, for instance they could find another reviewer or take a decision based on the opinion of the first reviewer and the editor assigned to the paper. Since SREP is in the business of APC (article processing charge)-based publishing, it should guarantee to its authors an engagement of a responsible editorial board and a team of trustworthy reviewers in order to structure an effective and operational review process.