Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This time we only had two reviews and our paper was directly accepted. We miss the deepness of the reviews of other times in Sensors.
Motivation:
This time the reviews were both fast and rigorous.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous, but it took a very long time.
Motivation:
The submission was straightforward. GCB honoured their 60-day reviewer timeline and accepted the revised manuscript quickly. Additionally, the manuscript available through early view extremely quickly, which ultimately allowed it to be read and cited before it has officially come out.
Motivation:
The editorial decision to go against the decision of the initial reviewers 1 and 2 and seek out a fourth reviewer are very strange. The whole process lacked transparency. I am very disappointed in how the editor handled this process and am not likely to submit another paper here soon.
Motivation:
I found six weeks for a desk reject without any comment very long for a public health journal.
Motivation:
The process was extremely quick and efficient.
Motivation:
Editor took over six weeks to make editorial rejection. Too long.
Motivation:
An AE wrote a summary of the paper missing the main point and rejected it.
Motivation:
The first time the AE comlpetely missed the novelties.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
Motivation:
The editor rejected on the grounds the content was not suited for the jpurnal. I replied pointing out i had replicated a study published in two papers in that journal. She never replied.
Motivation:
Overall, pleased with the process. Submission was straightforward, editorial response was swift. Also provided a reasonable explanation for the editorial rejection.
Motivation:
The second round of reviews took three months, which really at this stage of manuscript handling was an unacceptable delay.
Motivation:
After three months, the ms had not yet left the editor for review. After several attempts to contact the journal, the publisher and editor-in-chief eventually got back to us, regretted the unacceptable handling so far, and promised that the ms should be reviewed shortly and handled rapidly. That did not happen. After another two months the editor was not near a decision, and only a single referee report had been produced (the standard time for a review assignment for MPE being, to my knowledge, two weeks). At that point, after growing dissatisfaction from us, the editor-in-chief stepped in and made an executive interim decision (rejection, resubmission considered) based on a single referee report (regrettably of rather low quality). After resubmission, however, the ms was handled by the original editor, and accepted without further review after only two and a half weeks.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 574.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I had to withdraw my submitted paper because it was not revised 19 months after submission.
Motivation:
13 weeks is too long. Two out of three reviewers liked the MS, but a third did not. Plus editors submitted MS to internal reviewer , a claimed "expert" in Endocrinology, who was anything but an Expert.
Motivation:
They considered the work wasn't enough of a conceptual advance.
Motivation:
Not enough of a conceptual advance for a broad readership
Motivation:
Wasn't broadly interesting enough.
Motivation:
The review was slow because they had problems finding reviewers, but after acceptance it was published online within two weeks. The layout and copy editing was excellent, making the paper look beautiful. They were very responsive and helpful to any questions I have. I also greatly appreciate that they track the number of people who read and download the paper.
Motivation:
My main complaint is the time it took to reject. They consulted two extra people which took a while, and rejected it based on what I felt was a conflict of interest with one of their internal reviewing editors who I had neglected to exclude. I only realized the mistake when they indicated the reason for the rejection.
Motivation:
I waited 8 weeks for a manuscript to rejected outright. This is unacceptable for me.
Motivation:
First review round was slow. 2 Reviewer had an opposite opinion. Mansuscript was sent to a third reviewer.
After first round the manusscript handling was smooth.
After first round the manusscript handling was smooth.
Motivation:
Waiting for one year to get the first decision was a terrible experience. I sent couple emails to the editor about this but every time he sent me the same kind of sentences: second reviewer has not submitted the review report yet and I am going to read it along with the first reviewer's report to get a decision within two weeks. Finally, at the end of a year the editor read it and send a major rev. decision with unreasonable requests from the reviewer. Thus, we decided not to make any revision and withdraw the paper from the journal.