Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One reviewer suggested additional genetic experiments, so we had to grow plants (for 16 weeks) and report the results. The manuscript definitively improved after revision. After resubmision the editorial decision was made in 40 days. The editor was professional, understanding and polite.
Motivation:
Editors were very gracious and helpful in dealing with my medical leave that took place while paper was under review and was still happening when I got the decision
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to two reviewers. Reviews were insightful and helped improve the manuscript. Both suggested minor revision. The revised manuscript was accepted for publication.
Motivation:
Very fast manuscript handling, good communication with the editor. Blind review required.
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work on [topic], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
Actually, we initially submitted this as a comment to an article previously published in the same journal, so there was a review prior to the first review shown here. We were generally pleased with the reviewers' comments and with higher level editors responsiveness. However, the reviews and the editorial handling of the reviews took too long. We had to repeatedly ask for updates.
1.7 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I was satisfied both with the quality of the reviews I received for this manuscript and the time taken from first submission to acceptance.
Motivation:
Reviewing process extremely long!!
Motivation:
Generally, the review process was quick and helpful. I do think that the second reviewer kept raising issues that we had already addressed and the editor perhaps paid a little too much attention to these remarks.
Motivation:
The reviewers were psychologists, although the paper was phenomenology. This almost determines rejection.
Motivation:
The first round of review required only minor changes to the introduction and discussion (no method or results changes at all), but the editor decided to "reject with a recommendation to resubmit". Seemingly an attempt to manage their review speed metrics.
On re-submission, one reviewer was unable to be re-engaged, and so a new reviewer was found. This new reviewer's comments were the most critical of the manuscript, but would have been very easily addressed if we had the chance. Unfortunately the editors decided to reject without giving us an opportunity to address these concerns many months into a long process. Overall, slow process and disappointing editorial decisions.
On re-submission, one reviewer was unable to be re-engaged, and so a new reviewer was found. This new reviewer's comments were the most critical of the manuscript, but would have been very easily addressed if we had the chance. Unfortunately the editors decided to reject without giving us an opportunity to address these concerns many months into a long process. Overall, slow process and disappointing editorial decisions.
Motivation:
In my view, scientific journals should not make recommendations to other journals when rejecting a paper, especially when the suggestion is related to an alternative and lucrative marketplace of Open Access "sister" journals that charge amounts of money.
Motivation:
critical approaches only
Motivation:
Excellent communication, fast handling, constructive referee reports, great overall experience.
Motivation:
The speed of review was quick. Reviewers commented step by step issues of manuscript with suggestions what have to be improved. Overall impressions of submitting manuscript is positive. Will try to submit new manuscript again.
Motivation:
I have seen comments stating that the Plos One editorial process is quite slow, but while it did take a while for us to publish, it had more to do with addressing the reviewers comments than the editorial process itself. The comments were quite helpful, and the manuscript was greatly improved because of them. It was quite clear that our manuscript was evaluated by specialists in our subject area.
Motivation:
The process was fair and quick. I was a little weirded out by the inclusion of a new reviewer not he second round of reviews. At this point the changes needed where minimal.
Motivation:
In my view, the journals should not make recommendations to other journals, especially when the suggestion is related to an alternative and lucrative marketplace of Open Acess "sister" journals that require substantial amounts of processing charges.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 255.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We ultimately made the decision to withdraw our manuscript from this journal due to the excessively long delay in organizing peer review.
Motivation:
JMIR boasts quick turnaround times for first review under 3 months (see: https://www.jmir.org/reviewer/fastTrackStats/). I first contacted the journal 3 months after submission and received no responses from the editor for several weeks. A generic helpdesk staff member pointed me to a JMIR blog article asking authors not to contact the journal before 5 months is up. I did so and the journal still did not respond. I finally received a first decision slightly under 6 months after first submission.
Reviews were of moderate quality. To the journal's credit, subsequent revisions were reviewed within days up until final acceptance.
Reviews were of moderate quality. To the journal's credit, subsequent revisions were reviewed within days up until final acceptance.
Motivation:
The most disappointing aspects of the review process were the lack of depth of the review comments and the time it took to review.
Motivation:
The journal seams to be the ideal candidate for gold open access at the first glance, and it keeps its promise of very fast manuscript processing. However, this comes at a price. I cannot blame the journal for the poor quality of the reviews I received (poor in the sense that they did not even try to relate critique to the manuscript, and in parts were not even specific to the research field). What I consider problematic is that editors seam to just forward - and thereby adopt - these reviews whithout prior check at least for basic consistency.