Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The submission to PLOS One was just so staggeringly bad it was hard to believe. After 6 months from submission I withdrew the article - in that time it had been handled by 4 different editors, got 'stuck' in the initial review stage, and was not passed over to another editor when one left. The email communication I had with one of the journal staff was incredible, very cold and dismissive. Simply this was the worst experience with any journal in 25 years. My final exchange with the last editor finished with him says 'Yeah, I agree this is terrible'.
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Motivation:
After submission, absolutely nothing happened for a while: there was no status change in the system at all indicating that the manuscript was with the editors or still just submitted. I also noticed there was a change in the editors in the meanwhile and quite frankly I have the impression that the manuscript was simply forgotten. Due to the language and the phenomenon I investigated, the editors should have taken time to find adequate reviewers. Rather than doing so, I all of a sudden got desk rejection with completely ridiculous "arguments" that only revealed that the editor(s) did not read the entire manuscript. Had the editors identified substantial issues concerning the amnuscript, the situation would be different, but wondering about very basic notions of linguistics was completely unexpected.
Motivation:
A rather generic message was given: 'Unfortunately, after an initial screening, we did not find it suitable for BITE, thus regretfully will not be able to consider for publication'
And some extra information.
And some extra information.
Motivation:
First round of peer review took over 2 months.
Motivation:
Only very generic comments were provided, which did not justify their decisions, fair to authors or help academic theories to advance.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
Motivation:
I am writing to express my satisfaction with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. The journal's editors and reviewers were prompt and thorough in their handling of my manuscript, and their feedback was helpful and constructive. I appreciate the time and effort that they put into ensuring that the quality of the journal is maintained.
The review process was timely and efficient.
Overall, I had a positive experience with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. I would highly recommend this journal to other researchers.
The review process was timely and efficient.
Overall, I had a positive experience with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. I would highly recommend this journal to other researchers.
Motivation:
4.11 submitted / 5.11 received review comments / 5.15 resubmitted revised manuscript / 5.17 accepted — two reviewer direct accept (guess) / one minor revision
Motivation:
Not very friendly, but fast
Motivation:
Received a very friendly letter, showing the editor had taken a good look at the manuscript.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
Motivation:
After the second revision we did not obtain response from reviewer 1 and 2 (probably they accepted?); reviewer 2 was changed and rejected the manuscript with no reason
Motivation:
No reasons were given for a desk-rejection. They did not even provide any comments for improvement or on scope fitness. This is unfair, and unconstructive for knowledge advancement. They should learn respecting other authors.
Motivation:
The editor said only one reviewer accepted the invitation. The reviewer said my manuscript was interesting and only left a few minor comments about wording, while the editor still rejected my manuscript without any justification. Very disappointed.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted March 15th 2022.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
Motivation:
The paper was decided to be "not competitive enough for the limited space". We received two nonconstructive reviews that seemed put together last minute. I was very surprised on the low quality review from a journal like Science. One review said that we didn't provide evidence for a competing theory in the field, the second asked us to repeat data from 3 previous manuscripts from our lab, suggesting a thorough review process was not done.
Motivation:
Editor informs after the first round of revision that the comments of reviewer are not available. The rejection was done by the editor even not considering at all the rebuttal. In my long career this was the worst experience at all.
Motivation:
Over 12 weeks for an email to say the manuscript was not being sent for external review is unacceptable.
Motivation:
Smooth sailing, but first round took surprisingly long...
Motivation:
Pretty slow initial review, but reviews were excellent and the subsequent rounds really improved the paper a lot.
Motivation:
The Editors made inaccurate statements about COPE guidelines in their decision letter and use these statements to justify why they declined to further consider the submission.
Motivation:
The EIC kept authors wait very very long. The publisher was impolitely treating the authors. Addressable concerns were served as ground of rejections.
Motivation:
This is a multi-disciplinary business journal currently with a Finance background professor as EIC. Author will submit their manuscript specifying which section to submit (i.e., IS, Marketing, HRM...etc)
The phenomenon of my RQ is somewhat multi-dimensional. My RQ may not be interesting from a finance researcher's perspective, but not necessarily in other area researchers' perspective. I did not choose the finance sub-section for my submission, but he overwhelmingly accused that I did not justify the value of my research. He used his angle to judge, without passing it to section editor (head), and thus rejected my paper.
The truth is, I have already provided many related market statistics (which justify the value of my RQ), stated my RQ clearly, and have cited literature that tried to answer my RQ but did not provide very concrete answer.
He did not acknowledge the fact that a phenomenon related to finance can also be related to other areas. Studying a multi-dimensional phenomenon requires embracing diversity. Being the EIC of a multi-disciplinary business journal also requires embracing diversity. But the EIC of AJM did not.
The phenomenon of my RQ is somewhat multi-dimensional. My RQ may not be interesting from a finance researcher's perspective, but not necessarily in other area researchers' perspective. I did not choose the finance sub-section for my submission, but he overwhelmingly accused that I did not justify the value of my research. He used his angle to judge, without passing it to section editor (head), and thus rejected my paper.
The truth is, I have already provided many related market statistics (which justify the value of my RQ), stated my RQ clearly, and have cited literature that tried to answer my RQ but did not provide very concrete answer.
He did not acknowledge the fact that a phenomenon related to finance can also be related to other areas. Studying a multi-dimensional phenomenon requires embracing diversity. Being the EIC of a multi-disciplinary business journal also requires embracing diversity. But the EIC of AJM did not.
Motivation:
Reviews were mostly excellent. However, the review process stalled for a long time without explanation. After six months of inaction I contacted the associate editor dealing with my manuscript, who did not reply to repeated emails over the following six months. At that point I contacted the editors and the situation was resolved rapidly.
Motivation:
Desk rejection within 1 week. Out of scope / topic too narrow. Fast decision.
Motivation:
Fast desk rejection. We appreciate the speed of the journal.
Motivation:
We submitted a manuscript to this journal in February 2022. We were quickly requested to make some revisions by the handling editor. We resubmitted in April 2022. After that, the whole managing process was a pure disaster. The journal failed to secure reviewers for one year. We inquired about the status multiple times and even send lists with potential reviewers.
After 14 months, we were told that our manuscript would not fit within the scope of the journal (although we published 2 comparable manuscripts in the same journal). I would not submit here again. GLAH has changed and we cannot say anything positive about the communication with the editorial office.
After 14 months, we were told that our manuscript would not fit within the scope of the journal (although we published 2 comparable manuscripts in the same journal). I would not submit here again. GLAH has changed and we cannot say anything positive about the communication with the editorial office.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was desk rejected after 4 weeks. We were not given a reason.
Motivation:
AE is excellent but the reviewers are bad, they comment aggressively without any improvement advise.
Motivation:
The reviews were high-quality but the review process took a very long time. The holdup was primarily due to the handling editor.
Motivation:
Of course it is not always easy to find reviewers on voluntary basis, however, for a journal with such an high IF, more emphasis could have been lied on finding suitable reviewers. Overall it took quite long, though everything up to half a year is fine. Times for editor handling were quite lengthy.
5.2 weeks
24.2 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Our manuscript faced rejection after two rounds of review, despite receiving favorable recommendations from three out of four reviewers. Initially, one reviewer endorsed our work for publication, and after the first round of review, a second reviewer joined in their support. Following the second review round, a third reviewer not only recommended publication but also praised our efforts.
However, the fourth reviewer, who consistently recommended rejection throughout the process, exhibited self-contradiction in each round of review. This reviewer presented entirely unscientific arguments, such as personal experiences, which were not only weak but also incorrect. We addressed and refuted each of the reviewer's points using our data and supplementary scientific literature, yet the editor ultimately decided to reject our paper.
In my perspective, the review process was undemocratic, opaque, and unscientific. We sought clarification from the editor regarding the decision to reject our work despite the favorable recommendations of three out of four reviewers, but we received no response. Interestingly, the journal's editors have recently published articles similar to our own. While I hesitate to directly suggest a bias, it is challenging not to entertain such an assumption in the face of an evidently undemocratic and unscientific procedure.
However, the fourth reviewer, who consistently recommended rejection throughout the process, exhibited self-contradiction in each round of review. This reviewer presented entirely unscientific arguments, such as personal experiences, which were not only weak but also incorrect. We addressed and refuted each of the reviewer's points using our data and supplementary scientific literature, yet the editor ultimately decided to reject our paper.
In my perspective, the review process was undemocratic, opaque, and unscientific. We sought clarification from the editor regarding the decision to reject our work despite the favorable recommendations of three out of four reviewers, but we received no response. Interestingly, the journal's editors have recently published articles similar to our own. While I hesitate to directly suggest a bias, it is challenging not to entertain such an assumption in the face of an evidently undemocratic and unscientific procedure.
Motivation:
The individual responsible for coordinating the manuscript was quite helpful in guiding the submission and revision process. Additionally, the review process was efficient and without complications, with the reviewers' feedback proving constructive in enhancing the manuscript's quality.
Motivation:
The review process took unacceptably long (and did not even start in the first 6 months) and it occurred only by very extensive help from the author team (suggesting an unusually large number of potential peer reviewers). The remaining aspects of the review process were quite reasonable.
Motivation:
My experience with FIP was not so satisfactory. The outcome is that I withdrew the submission.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and the submission process was straightforward.