Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of [...], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
Provided 3 alternative journals name but did not say why exactly why it did not.
Motivation:
It took a while for them to make a decision, but the response was very detailed with clear reasons given for the rejection.
Motivation:
Wonderful experience. The speed and efficiency of the journal and editor was outstanding.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers did not read the paper beyond the introduction and did not understand the motivation of the paper at all. He/she also made a handful of mathematically wrong statements. The other reviewer clearly read the paper and made a list of editorial corrections.Main purpose of the paper was also lost on him/her.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively quick and painless. However, it was made a little complicated by having an editor and sub-edit assigned on the other side of the world. This led to slow communications at times which made the process painfully tedious. The final editorial review was also quite tedious with literally 5 pages of editorial comments which needed to be addressed. Most of these were standard requests for stylistic editing which did not necessarily apply, but we were given the impression they needed to be addressed nonetheless. In one case there was a request which was not clear and attempts to get clarification took almost 2 weeks. This was very frustrating at the point of acceptance, exacerbated by the time difference between authors and editorial staff.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
Nonetheless, we found the process sufficiently thorough that we were able to produce a very high quality paper in the end.
Motivation:
It was a slow process to get the first and second review, but the quality of the review reports was excellent. I wouldn't recommend if you want to publish fast, but would recommend for the quality of the journal and their rigorous review.
Motivation:
Editor spent 20 days to find the reviewers. Reviewers' comments are fair and addressable.
After the second round, there were no further comments then accepted directly.
After the second round, there were no further comments then accepted directly.
Motivation:
The Review process appeared to be rather smooth. There was a small delay in the last round ("Decision in Progress" status for some days), but overall the experience was very good.
Motivation:
An associate editor which has reviewed the manuscript does not believe in one of the main tools quantitative genetics has developped in the last 20 years and recommends to reject the manuscript to discourage further research into this direction.
The key sentences of the associate editor's review:
"Personally, I do not believe that prediction of genetic values (additive, dominant or additive by additive) should be performed with Whole Genome Regression (WGR) methods for reasons that I discuss below. Notice that this is not to say WGR are useless, because they serve as the main tool for GWAS.... At this point, like many other papers, this research adds to the confusion on the value of WGR for predicting genetic effects that have been defined within a quantitative genetics framework.
To summarize, I recommend rejection of the manuscript to discourage further research on prediction of genetic effects with WGR... "
The key sentences of the associate editor's review:
"Personally, I do not believe that prediction of genetic values (additive, dominant or additive by additive) should be performed with Whole Genome Regression (WGR) methods for reasons that I discuss below. Notice that this is not to say WGR are useless, because they serve as the main tool for GWAS.... At this point, like many other papers, this research adds to the confusion on the value of WGR for predicting genetic effects that have been defined within a quantitative genetics framework.
To summarize, I recommend rejection of the manuscript to discourage further research on prediction of genetic effects with WGR... "
Motivation:
Despite having a total of 7 figures and 8 supplementary figures, it was unclear for the editors what added value the paper had for the scientific knowledge. Moreover , single cell RNAseq was considered to be a standard technique in the field and was lacking in our manuscript. Most of the comments were rebuttable, however the Editor felt that pushing the paper to external review would only make us lose time as we would probably receive another rejection.
Motivation:
The journal process is so fast, transparent and journal publishes high-quality papers. i have read so many papers of this journals. Normally journal took two weeks as review process but in my case, the English language was not appropriate for a reviewer, so we got the little delay in revision but after English editing, we got acceptance within 1 month. we can see the review progress in real time. I will recommend this journal for all authors.
Motivation:
The handling time of the manuscript could have been faster. The editorial office however is very responsive and was very helpful during the submission. When asking after a couple of weeks when we could expect the editorial decision, their promised deadlines were always correct.
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The article was with the editor for over 12 months and nothing happened. It was not even sent to reviewers. I decided to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere.
Motivation:
The review process was long enough which is fine in this line of work and given that the Energy journal is prestigious but waiting almost 4.5 months for two review comments, each of 2-3 lines (meaningless comments: related to changing spellings, abbreviations) was discouraging with this journal. Also one reviewer doubting the link of paper to the Energy journal when the editor has deemed it fit for review astonishes me. Overall Bad experience.
Motivation:
It appears that the paper was never sent out for review before it was rejected. The time this took was several months. I found the entire process very unprofessional.
Motivation:
After the first rejection (missing control group), the paper was completely submitted again. Three reviewer made their comments and suggestions. All critics were both, fair and very constructive. After a first revision (meanwhile two reviewer were satifed), the editors asked for a minor revision. Done. The paper was accepted.
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewer are very short and careless.
Motivation:
Nice editor