All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The only negative experience is that it took really a long time for each round of reviews. I did not have any problems with the quality check, it was very fast, within 1 day. Only when I submitted the paper for the third time, for some reason the quality check took three days (maybe because it was around Christmas). I definitely advise to just follow the rules regarding the manuscript preparation and take into account that quality check may take time.
My best experience about this Journal is with the reviewers. While one of them was quite brief, and did not ask for many changes, the other one was really incredible. Despite asking really a lot of stuff to be done, his/her reviews were so helpful, incredibly insightful, and I am truly sorry that I may never found out who that reviewer was. That reviewer incredibly influenced the quality of the paper. I only wish all the reviewers could be so professional and take time to review the manuscripts in such a thorough way.

Motivation: Excellent editorial office, selected reviewers that knew the subject and provided positive suggestions, quick response from the editor and the journal. Overall one of the best journals I have worked with.

Motivation: The reviewers' comments were very constructive and detailed, which helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. The editor has provided clear and direct guidance during the review process. The turnaround time was great and shorter than we'd expected.

Motivation: Some reviewer questions were already answered in the manuscript. However, the inputs were still important to improve the quality of the paper and address a broader readership.

Motivation: Review process is so long!

Motivation: There was a vague opinion about the paper. It showed they even did not read the manuscript thoroughly. we think the reason of rejection was something that we already explained in the manuscript.
Major reasons for the rejection were stated as the lack of proper theoretical basis of the paper, vague scope (what the paper was trying to say) and the unclear contribution. At the same time, the respected reviewers stated that important studies that were relevant to the field were not consulted with. For us this reasoning was a bit unclear, considering that, as mentioned in the reasons for rejection, the scope of the paper was vague.

Motivation: The review process from Bioinformatics was awful. The reviewers' comments themselves were ok, but I only need to cut and paste the statement from the editor, it needs no other comment.

"I am sorry for the long delay in reviewing this paper. We normally do not like to make a decision with less than three reviews, but ***one of the three reviews on your paper is greatly overdue and we have not been able to get a response from the referee***. It is especially difficult on your paper, since the two reviewers we have rate the paper very differently. ***Nonetheless, we do not want to attempt to find a new reviewer so late in the process and will make the best judgment we can from the reviews we have.*** "

Motivation: One reviewer was specifically asking to add more information regarding a topic which is not the focus of my manuscript. We added some information concisely and after all the modifications, the manuscript was lengthened by more than 3000 words. Still, the reviewer felt the changes were cosmetic.

Motivation: Reviewer 1 said paper was great and should be published
Reviewer 2 asked for clarifications and improvements
Reviewer 3 wrote an illegible, incredibly negative review and clearly did not have sufficient english language skills to understand the paper. Also asked for experiments that would be ethically questionable in most countries.

Regardless, we did our best to respond and altered the manuscript to appease the negative reviewer. The editor sent the paper back to Reviewer 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 was happy with our changes and recommended publish. Reviewer 3, yet again wrote an aggressive, borderline illegible response and recommended reject.

Unfortunately the editor completely ignored two clearly worded, well thought out reviews that recommended publish and went with what could be seen by most as a hostile review. If the editor had bothered to read the review it would be clear that the reviewer was not suitable for the role. We are very disappointed that he allowed this reviewer to have so much sway.

Motivation: Rather long time for a desk rejection, a transfer offer was given

Motivation: An appeal with Divisional Associate Editor was filed, given unsubstantiated declination by the Editor, that conflicted with recommendations of the reviewers. It too resulted in a declination. Communication read like a standard template.