Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A prompt response from the editor with comments pertaining to the study definitely helped us during this submission. The editor highlighted key points from our study and even suggested relevant sister journals wherein our work would be better appreciated. The experience was definitely worth the rejection.
Motivation:
Rapid, and easy, though review was not super thorough.
Motivation:
The review process was fast. It took only one day before we knew that we were under review. The quality of the reviews was ok. One had good ideas about how we could improve our manuscript, the other did not seem to have read the manuscript that well, based on the review it gave.
Motivation:
I am writing my personal experience with this journal. This journal kept your article in coma for at least one year (on the name of ‘under review “). This journal never replies to author queries. The editor does not cross check to whom he is sending reviewer request (They sent reviewer request to me to review my own paper!!!). Even after clarifying that I am the corresponding author for the manuscript, the editor did not reply to my mail. After waiting for one year 3 months, finally I wrote a mail to editor that I am withdrawing my manuscript due to inordinate delay in processing the manuscript. Again no reply from editor !!! The editorial staff of this journal does not reply to author queries.
Motivation:
Two review reports were helpful for improving our manuscript. Still, we are left with the feeling that EJOR was not the right match for our piece of research. However, it should not take 7 months to come to such conclusion.
Motivation:
We received two constructive review reports, geared at helping to improve the manuscript. After major revision the manuscript was accepted.
Motivation:
They had difficulty finding an article editor to handle the paper. I was also informed that they had difficulties getting suitable reviewers. They requested for one month to attempt finding an article editor to which I agreed. After more than a month and no subsequent notice from the editorial manager, I withdrew my paper.
Motivation:
This appeared an efficient and correct procedure.
Motivation:
The submission process went very well.
Motivation:
Editor's comments were strange. I am even not sure that this editor has read the whole paper.
Motivation:
After presubmission and invited full submission they did not send the manuscript to external reviewers
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were a combination of misgivings about how our analysis had been carried out and a topic that was too restricted in its geographic relevance to be of wide interest.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
15.9 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Great & quick & helpful experience!
Motivation:
1 reviewer was for, the 2 others were against acceptance but without clear scientific reasons. One of the last reviewer said the manuscript might be out of scope...
Motivation:
One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
Motivation:
Pretty slow for immediate rejection, especially with no reason given for rejection at all.
Motivation:
The editor deemed the manuscript wasn't a sufficient advance to qualify it into the top 10% of papers submitted so rejected very quickly (same day). Happy with that turn-around and justification.
Motivation:
Very fast to immediate rejection. Rejected because it was deemed not in the top 20% of papers submitted. Fair enough, no complaints on this one.
Motivation:
Would have liked faster rejection speed for a rejection without sending to reviewers
Motivation:
Overall this was a good review process. I would have liked it to be a bit faster, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Motivation:
This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
Motivation:
Pretty slow to reject without review.
Motivation:
No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.
Motivation:
I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
Motivation:
Review process a bit slow - this was a review article and since the review phase took so long we had to update the review with the new papers that had come out since then (quite a lot actually). Besides one of the reviewers was overzealous, picking on things that made no sense. The other two were quite fine. The editor is charming. Once the revised version was submitted the decision happened fat. Overall a nice experience.
Motivation:
After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.