Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It's a journal that offered reviews in a timely manner. If only they all did.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was handled terribly by this journal. First our initial submission was returned to us for not including a supplement with full size blots, which is specifically stated in their guidelines to only be required after the paper is accepted. Next it took ~7 weeks for the journal to assign an associate editor despite us including 3 editor suggestions in the cover letter. Multiple emails later, we provided the journal with a list of~15 associate editors with the necessary expertise to handle our manuscript. After finally being assigned an editor, it took ~6 more weeks to find reviewers. The paper was submitted in early January. By the time the reviews cam back it was mid-April. Addressing the reviewers concerns was relatively simple and the paper was returned to the journal in a few weeks. The paper was accepted for publication in late June. It is July 17 as I write this and we still have no indication as to when the paper will actually be published. In the words of my PI, "I've published over 200 papers and this is by far the worst journal I have ever dealt with."
Motivation:
Worst experience for this journal. The status of my manuscript remain manuscript submitted since three months. I got a mail that they have mailed 20 editors for handling my manuscript and nobody is accepting ant request and please withdraw your paper. How is dat possible even in a repute journal like this. Utter time wastage..... Disheartened
Motivation:
Very quick editorial decision. The reviewe were also quick and insightful.
Motivation:
All three referees agreed that the manuscript was not interesting enough for their field...which is totally correct as the manuscript was written for a different field. We have no idea why an editor would send the manuscript to 3 referees from his own field instead of using referees from the target audience and the field we work in. However, our experience matches the experience from other research groups which submitted manuscripts to Nat. Comm. that were handled by the same editor and ended up with very bizarre peer review experiences. Accordingly, the submission experience with Nat. Comm. may be great for other groups ending up with different editors, but in our case, the experience was definitely subpar.
Motivation:
The paper was desk rejected as the editor deemed it not a good fit for the journal. No explanation was given as to why this were the case. The paper was obviously fully within the scope of the journal, so I assume the editor didn't like it but couldn't be bothered to give some feedback as to what the problems were. At least they didn't hang on it for too long.
Motivation:
High quality but very long process.
Motivation:
After 4,5 months of reviewing, only one reviewer review the manuscript. Then, the Editor rejected the manuscript although this reviewer advised major revision
Motivation:
While the reports were high quality and helpful to improve the manuscript, the pace of review was painfully slow. The EIC would not repond to queries and we had written that we were considering to withdraw the manuscript due to excessively long time. Then, within a day or so, I obtained the first round of reviews that asked for a major R&R.
Motivation:
Despite outdated website experience (it is 2019!), the overall submission process is smooth. However, it took way too long for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
Our experience of submission to Journal of Cell Science was extremely poor. It took over 3 months to receive an editorial rejection (including two emails to chase up the manuscript in this time, though responses to this were quick in all fairness).
While rejection is part of the process we were very taken aback by the poor quality of the reviews. 2 reports were submitted, one of which did not constitute any feedback, constructive or otherwise - simply stating that the work was not relevant or suited to publication in Journal of Cell Science. Ultimately the review process was extremely protracted and not even remotely constructive - huge waste of time. Even if reviewers think poorly of the manuscript, we should be given scientific reasons/criticism to work on (even if rejected!). It should not have taken 3 months to receive a rejection like this.
While rejection is part of the process we were very taken aback by the poor quality of the reviews. 2 reports were submitted, one of which did not constitute any feedback, constructive or otherwise - simply stating that the work was not relevant or suited to publication in Journal of Cell Science. Ultimately the review process was extremely protracted and not even remotely constructive - huge waste of time. Even if reviewers think poorly of the manuscript, we should be given scientific reasons/criticism to work on (even if rejected!). It should not have taken 3 months to receive a rejection like this.
Motivation:
The review process was reasonably fast. The comments from reviewers were constructive and useful. The editor was helpful and also provided good advice to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
After initial rejection, we were allowed to resubmit after emailing the editor to ask for clarification on the decision and stating that we would be able to address the reviewers concerns. Our request was handled very graciously and after resubmission our manuscript was accepted with minor revisions.
Motivation:
First reviews took too long to be communicated to me.
Second round of reviews was not really necessary; final amendments requested by editor would have sufficed. This was an extremely short paper.
Second round of reviews was not really necessary; final amendments requested by editor would have sufficed. This was an extremely short paper.
Motivation:
I am so excited to publish in this journal. The feedback was a bit uptight, but it definitely improved my manuscript.
Motivation:
Discrepancies among reviewers were quite obvious and the word-limits did not allow comprehensive articulation.
Motivation:
Very slow to receive initial reviews, timed poorly - got caught up in the period where all the editors left in protest of the new OA policy.
Motivation:
First time I had a paper accepted by a Q1 journal. took a while but highly recommend
Motivation:
Very fast handling of the paper - likely also because the paper in question was a "short communication" (<4000 words), and overall excellent communication with and from the editor.
The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,
The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,
Motivation:
I would rather get demoted or fired than submit to this journal again. This was the worst experience of my life. Extremely long handling, an unresponsive editor, biased reviews, quick and misinformed editorial choices. I wonder why someone would submit to this journal at all. Avoid at all costs!
Motivation:
Quick review processing with 3 good quality reviews. The corrections were checked and the manuscript accepted in 5 hours! A great experience compared to other journals.
Motivation:
The review process was excellent and very time-efficient.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
Motivation:
The comments reflected a very poor understanding of methodology (ie thinking pseudo R^2 means the same thing as R^2) and lack of attention to the paper (ie you should you hierarchical models “instead” when I already was using them). One was just a summary of the argument. They won’t help me actually improve the paper.