Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The overall experience was quick and painless. The editor felt that our work was interesting but too many experiments would have been required to answer to the reviewers comments. We regret the outright rejection and the impossibility to answer to the reviewers criticisms as most of them could have been addressed through a detailed response.
Motivation:
For the first review, the editor sent our article to two reviewers. One of the reviewers recommended minor revision while another reviewer recommended reject. then, the editor sent our article to the third reviewer for final recommendation. The third reviewer requested major revisions. After resubmitting, we received a minor revision and then article was accepted.
Motivation:
Two positive reviews (one major R&R and one minor R&R). Editor still rejected paper with one sentence justification.
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Motivation:
Perfect Journal for quality review and rapid turn around time. My two papers have got accepted and published online within 6 months from the date of first submission.
Motivation:
Of the two, one reviewer failed to carry out the task effectively. The comments made it clear that the reviewer had not read the Manuscript/Supporting Information, yet the reviewer opted for rejection of the manuscript. The comments questioned many aspects of the manuscript which were in fact, explained to a great extent in the main paper and supporting information.
Motivation:
The editor desk-rejected our paper saying it was not a good fit for the journal, with no additional feedback. I sent a polite inquiry requesting some quick feedback as to why that was the case but to no avail. At least they didn't take the long to reject the paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers had fairly good knowledge about the field and raised comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editorial board was helpful during the submission process.
Quality of review was outstanding.
It takes time for acceptance
Quality of review was outstanding.
It takes time for acceptance
Motivation:
We had two reviewers, one of which was expert in the field and required several reanalysis, while another was a bit superficial but pointed out simple mistakes and unclear texts in the manuscript. Both reviewers were truly helpful for us to improve our manuscript.
Motivation:
Way too long for immediate rejection
Motivation:
Rejected because it did not fit the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally very helpful and resulted in improvements to the manuscript.
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.
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:
Too long process
Motivation:
It took a very long time to receive a reply. Reviews were contradicting, and two of them of very bad quality
Motivation:
Very constructive and respectful reviewers' comments, appreciative editor's comments, quick review process
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:
This experience with NHB's review process was one of the best experiences that I've had with a review process. It took a bit longer than I expected, but it was worth it.
Motivation:
Low quality reviewer comments, and difficulties to get feedback from the editor.
I would have expected a bit more given the reputation of the journal in the field.
I would have expected a bit more given the reputation of the journal in the field.
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.
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.
41.7 weeks
122.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer took a long time.
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.*** "
"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:
The process was very smooth and straight forward. We can recomment to publish future paper in PPSC.