Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
4 reviews were unusual. But the editor gave a fair decision, I thought.
Motivation:
There were three viewers. The suggestions they made were very constructive. Each of them raised some issues, which were fair, addressable and helped us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Desk reject: relatively quickly. It was fair, the paper was not the BEST fit for the journal. Sent elsewhere.
Motivation:
The article was published in a special issue of this journal.
Motivation:
Only two reviews received, even though a third reviewer accepted initially (who did not submit a review).
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
Motivation:
Time to the first decision was slow, but after 1st review was more quickly.
Motivation:
The original submission was done earlier and editor returned the manuscript due to two small technical errors. In my honest opinion, it could have been corrected after the review process and this cost me two more weeks.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 30.4 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Relatively speedy handling.
Editor made his own judgement about reviewer comments, based on their quality.
Pretty bad post-acceptance proof processing by the production staff.
Editor made his own judgement about reviewer comments, based on their quality.
Pretty bad post-acceptance proof processing by the production staff.
Motivation:
The response was relatively quick (6 days). They seem to have wanted a more infection-related material (macrophage infection model etc) to "broaden the target audience" while our paper was more mechanistic/pure molecular biology in prokaryotes. They suggested to send to their sister journal Nature Communications instead.
Motivation:
Possibly the Associate Editor himself reviewed the paper and pointed out the mistakes and he was correct in rejecting the paper!
Motivation:
I received constructive comments from reviewers, which could improve the quality of our paper. Although the review took a little longer, the overall review process was not bad.
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
Motivation:
My sense is that the journal just didn't find our study interesting enough. Comments from reviewers were mainly positive, though the few critiques they did have will be helpful for resubmitting the paper elsewhere.