Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
rejection due to "reviewers not found" is not a very nice message to send to the authors, so instead I suggest they should ask the author to suggest some names and then they can vet that list and see what works.
Motivation:
Great opinions from landscape ecologists in the know about the topic at hand.
Motivation:
Even though our manuscript was rejected, the comment of reviewers were so helpful to improve our research. Thank you again.
Motivation:
After 2 weeks of submission, we have sent email to the editorial office about the review process of our manuscript, because it was showing "with journal". They told that editor is in vacation. After one month, it was showing the same status "with journal". We have requested the editorial office to cancel of our submission. Next day editor appears with some general comments from the reviewer that reviewer suggested to reject our manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was exceptionally fast. The quality of review was top notch.
Motivation:
Easy to submit and very responsive editorial team.
Motivation:
The journal has a good reputation and they processed my paper so fast. the review process was excellent and transparent. paper improved lot after revision. the paper got accepted within less than 2 months.
Motivation:
The editor was impolite, not responsive, irresponsible. Reviewers were unprofessional and showed no strengths and responsibilities in performing their peer review duty. In fact, having reject decisions was nothing new to an experienced author, but the way this journal handled their manuscript and treated the submitter was really terrible and totally unacceptable, an experience that I could not forget after many years.
Motivation:
I have send three manuscripts till now to this journal and the editor response very quickly within 1-4 days if it is desk rejected. Even though I made the structural changes in abstract, references and all send the manuscript again as a new submission stil the editor rejected it without sending it to the authors.
Motivation:
The review process takes too long.....
Motivation:
After submitting revisions and waiting a couple of months, we received a second revision except it had exactly the same comments which had already been addressed. There was a bit of back and forth with the journal. It should have been a quicker process because there was only a single minor revision for the manuscript, which we addressed promptly, yet it took about 6 months to get it accepted from initial submission.
Motivation:
The turnaround times were very quick. Reviews were reasonable.
Motivation:
Very quick and detailed response. Looking forward to getting rejected again in the future.
Motivation:
I was very happy about the fast and professional review process. Especially the guidance of one of the two reviews really improved our manuscript.
Also, I like the easy way to achieve open access publishing for the papers (our university has a contract with the publisher, so we pay no fees for open access, but you can also publish open access without a fee when you are member of the Electrochemical Society).
Also, I like the easy way to achieve open access publishing for the papers (our university has a contract with the publisher, so we pay no fees for open access, but you can also publish open access without a fee when you are member of the Electrochemical Society).
Motivation:
The review process was handled very professionally. Good quality reviewers that helped improve the manuscript substantially.
Motivation:
Efficient and rather fast review process. One of the reviewer had problems with our methodology while the other reviewer was globally positive. This resulted in the rejection of our paper.
Motivation:
After a 12 week review, we received a single paragraph outlining a half-dozen shortcomings in our manuscript, none of which were supported with literature. This is concerning given statements surrounding the novelty of the work. Collogueges well versed in the topic had previously reviewed this manuscript and found it novel and engaging to read. Given the limited depth of the review, only a single review being reported with no recommendations for improvement, the process allowed provided little improvement potential. I have previously been very impressed with this journal and will submit here in the future, but will hope for a more thorough and timely review process.
Motivation:
The quality of the feedback given and the justification for not sending it out to reviewers were disappointing.
Motivation:
The editor felt that the work was not suitable for publication because it did not fit the journal's scope. The authors do not agree in general with the editor's decision and think that the topics perfectly matched the journal's guidelines. Works on similar topics, and published in the same journal in the past, were even previously identified by the authors which partially guided the decision for choosing this journal. The editor admitted he was not able to understand the topic of the paper which the authors found it also a surprising statement. We concluded that we just had 'bad luck' with the assigned editor. The communication at least was fast which is always a positive point.
Motivation:
Rapid rejection without review. No complaints here - we submitted the paper to another journal the following day.
Motivation:
Editor has refused the article without any good reason and I had the feeling that he does not even read the manuscript, given the automatic, vague and obtuse answer.
Motivation:
We failed to communicate our results well in this paper, and received rather confusing reports from the reviewers. That's not going to cut it with a journal like ESR.
Motivation:
The paper was quickly rejected because the editor felt that it was not a fundamental advance in our understanding. I got the option to submit to the sister journal of Nature Climate Change.