Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor team is working very fast. The whole process took place very quickly, taking less than three months. The comments of the reviewers were very affirmative and relevant.
Motivation:
This was the very first submission to Frontiers in Oncology from our group and as mentioned in the Journal Description the overall handling, reviewing and decision making process were extremely efficient. As compared to our experiences with previous high end journals. The editor assignment was extremely quick and the whole process from that point onwards was very supportive. We received fair unbiased reviews for our manuscript and while not all comments were useful, the process definitely enhanced the quality of our document. Most of the comments from reviewers addressed the need to include more information pertaining to the observations made in our study. Throughout the entire process we were constantly kept informed of our manuscript status due to a transparent review process. The editor also handled all queries raised by us with minimal delay in the publication process. A slight glitch was presented towards the end of the publication when the editorial office suggested an article transfer following the endorsement of the article by both the reviewers. However, following a response from us they withdrew this request. Amongst all the journals which I have submitted to till date, Frontiers in Oncology definitely stuck to their motto most effectively. I would surely send out future articles in this journal
Motivation:
- The review-process was exceptionally thorough. Very critical and extensive feedback.
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
Motivation:
Reviewer advised rejection because this was not "surprising" enough.
Motivation:
Very quick turnaround time. Professional communication. Good review reports.
Motivation:
Reviews were handled appropriately, in our opinion. Editorial decision to reject was explained in detail - thus justified. We felt that we could have addressed the concerns in a chance to review the manuscript, however, these things are always a matter of debate
Motivation:
Straight forward submission process.
Motivation:
Understandable reason was given to transfer the manusscipt to a different journal.
Motivation:
Short time until decision.
Motivation:
Very helpful comments by reviewers who are experts in their fields. Short time for each round.
Motivation:
The second round of reviews was a conditional accept, asking to do very minor changes so it was OK for me to resubmit a second time. Most importantly, the editor decided to accept the paper despite the fact that one of the reviewers still felt skeptical about the article's argument. This is a good sign for me, i.e. the fact that the Editor is willing to bet on an argument even going against of that annoying reviewer who is not satisfied even after you have made the required changes.
Motivation:
We liked the process of publishing at this journal.
Motivation:
The editor decision took quite a long time (3 weeks), which is unfortunate. However, when recieved, the rejection letter was reasoned and informative. Although I (unsurprisingly) do not agree, it does help me prepare the manuscript for the next submission.
Motivation:
Good editorial comments from the reviewers that improved the manuscript. Rapid turnaround. Very streamlined and straightforward R&R process.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers were excellent. My only frustrations were with the publisher: The typesetters introduced multiple errors (including making some sentences of my paper ungrammatical), which I had to painstakingly find and correct.
Motivation:
The review process was rigor and helpful.
Motivation:
The handling and reviewing process was very helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was swift enough, although in general my impression was that the referees addressed those points that I never made in my paper. Yet, I had to respond in a way as if I had made these points in order not to get a rejection.
Motivation:
The associated editor gave very constructive feedback and offered specific reasons of why he thought the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
Motivation:
After an internal review process by the editor, I was notified that my article did not fit the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor took care to offer an explanatory and encouraging reply, providing advice on other journals to submit my article and suggestions on how to improve it.
Motivation:
The editor sent a very personalized and encouraging commentary, and recommended alternative specialist outlets which might be more appropriate for the paper.
Motivation:
Offer to trasfer to the Taylor & Francis’ Cogent Series (www.cogentoa.com) open journal platform instead.
Motivation:
Very quick editorial response. Reason for rejection was: "Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists."