Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Discrepancies among reviewers were quite obvious and the word-limits did not allow comprehensive articulation.
Motivation:
Very slow to receive initial reviews, timed poorly - got caught up in the period where all the editors left in protest of the new OA policy.
Motivation:
First time I had a paper accepted by a Q1 journal. took a while but highly recommend
Motivation:
Very fast handling of the paper - likely also because the paper in question was a "short communication" (<4000 words), and overall excellent communication with and from the editor.
The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,
The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,
Motivation:
I would rather get demoted or fired than submit to this journal again. This was the worst experience of my life. Extremely long handling, an unresponsive editor, biased reviews, quick and misinformed editorial choices. I wonder why someone would submit to this journal at all. Avoid at all costs!
Motivation:
Quick review processing with 3 good quality reviews. The corrections were checked and the manuscript accepted in 5 hours! A great experience compared to other journals.
Motivation:
The review process was excellent and very time-efficient.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
Motivation:
The comments reflected a very poor understanding of methodology (ie thinking pseudo R^2 means the same thing as R^2) and lack of attention to the paper (ie you should you hierarchical models “instead” when I already was using them). One was just a summary of the argument. They won’t help me actually improve the paper.
Motivation:
Took 5 weeks to desk-reject with a 1 line justification.
Motivation:
Swift desk-reject.
Motivation:
Took 7 months just to get reviews back, had to email editor multiple times to get updates. The first review was mostly positive, but the second review addressed some concerns. The editor decided to reject it.
Motivation:
Despite publishing multiple papers on the exact same topic by a prominent group, after almost 4 weeks:
"It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal."
"It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. In making this decision, we are not questioning the technical quality or validity of your findings, or their value to others working in this area, only assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal. In this case, we do not believe that the work represents a development of sufficient scientific impact such that it might merit publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the study would find a more suitable audience in another journal."
Motivation:
It took them 4 weeks to find an editor and another two weeks to find external reviewers. The reviewers' comments were relatively straightforward and useful; it was also evident that the reviewers had a profound understanding of the subject. However, the whole process from submission to rejection was delayed (which the editor apologized for in an email) and took almost 3 months. This was unnecessarily drawn out.
Motivation:
Peer review at this journal was a joke. It consisted of six numbered, vague statements: about the title, not using first person narrative, and other comments completely outside the scope of the paper. Luckily, the paper had received a lot of helpful feedback prior to publishing with AJPS. Sadly I think we realized too late this journal is probably predatory (see the publisher Scientific Research Publishing, which routinely changes domains). Fee is $999.
Motivation:
I think it is very important to get the right reviewers!
Motivation:
Reviewers suggested minor revisions that helped clarify the manuscript. Overall, a very good experience.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and painless.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround from editor. We felt time to resubmit was quite short given author availability so soon after the festive period but we managed this OK.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Motivation:
The formatting requirements for the journal are somewhat onerous, and would make me hesitate before submitting there again (e.g. strict limitations on number of figures with no option for supplementary materials, unusual format for figures, integrated results/discussion sections). However, the review process was relatively speedy and requests from the editors were reasonable. The editors were diplomatic about reviewer comments deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
Motivation:
Response time was great considering the need to optimize researchers time. Also the comment was specific stating that the manuscript topic was outside the scope of the Journal.
Motivation:
Fast review by the editorial team and the communication was great.
Motivation:
The peer-review process was very rapid. we received a minor revision and upon on resubmitting, we received acceptance after 5 days.
Motivation:
Rather quick process but review reports lacking.