Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I have given the manuscript an initial assessment and concluded that its contents and methods do not really mach those proposed in the Scope of this journal.
Motivation:
Quality of review was extremely poor. It also had severely flawed statements based on which the recommendation was made. I challenged those statements through the editor. Reviewer did not respond!
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 159.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The article has been showing "Editor Assigned" for the last six months without being sent to reviewers. After waiting for six months, we contacted the editor who sent a mail to somebody in the springer editorial office requesting to know the status. Nobody replied and its been two weeks, therefore, request for withdrawal was made.
Its disappointing to see a large number of deadbeat journals like these in springer publishing which take almost 2 years to publish (going by their latest online papers) due to lack of interest by editors and reviewers alike. Springer Nature should really "review" these journals for removal/improvement.
Its disappointing to see a large number of deadbeat journals like these in springer publishing which take almost 2 years to publish (going by their latest online papers) due to lack of interest by editors and reviewers alike. Springer Nature should really "review" these journals for removal/improvement.
Motivation:
I received two reports: one very positive, constructive and to the point. The other, very negative, agressive and offensive, and with vague words about the paper itself. After the decision was communicated, I wrote to the editor-in-chief, saying that the negative report was extremely rude and not technica. He then asked me to write a rebuttal letter and he would then send my letter and the manuscript to an adjuticator. This third reviewer made a positive report of our results, but recommended rejection saying that the problem which we were considering was more theoretical and not necessarily related to nonlinear problems coming from real problems. Although I read in this journal papers not necessarily coming from real problems, I can accept this argument. Overall, my opinion about the whole process was positive.
Motivation:
I had to e-mail to the journal around one month after each submission. The paper was completely stopped, without any editorial action. In reply to one of my messages, the editor-in-chief wrote that he cannot see my paper through the system and he was asking for some help. Moreover, in the first revision one of the reports was somewhat nonsense, but we did our best to make changes according to the referee's suggestions. Then, in the second round of the revision, the editor invited two other reviewers to the manuscript. It was really a desaster. One of the asked us to cancel the editions we made by the reviewer I mentioned and, in essence, return the paper to its original version. Summarising: it was a terrible process. I didn't like.
Motivation:
The review process took a resonable time, the reports we received were very technical and coherent. The editor was quick in each step of the process.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial processing. Reviewers provided critical but friendly and constructive comments and suggestions.
Motivation:
The subject editor gave me very detailed suggestions.
Motivation:
Rather lengthy time for a desk rejection. Contacted journal after three weeks of status "Awaiting Editor Assignment" and was told editors were busy and hadn't had a chance to look at it yet.
Motivation:
I did not agree with their reasoning for the manuscript not being a good fit. I thought it should have at least been sent out for review. However, I am grateful for the quick process with which it was rejected, which allowed me to send it to a new journal
Motivation:
The reviewers of my manuscript were very helpful, and I believe they provided me with good feedback. However, I was very disappointed in the review process because the editor rejected my manuscript after two rounds of resubmission based on what could be considered "fatal flaws" present in the first review round. I believe the manuscript was handled unprofessionally, and it would have been better for the editor to reject the manuscript outright. Instead, my manuscript spent a year being revised and resubmitted and under review with nothing to show for it.
Motivation:
After submitting my manuscript to the Natural Resources Forum, I received a revise and resubmit with comments from 7 reviewers. It was a very long process to revise the paper in a way that dealt with the concerns of all 7 reviewers who were focused on very different aspects of the paper.
After re-submission, I received a second round of comments from 6 of the 7 reviewers. The majority commented on how well I had dealt with the first round of comments and many said it was ready for publication or just needed a few final edits. While this process was certainly longer and more intense that normal, I do believe a better paper emerged out of it and that is great.
I finally received a decision from the editor simply reading "I found the contribution of the paper hard to identify. The article could be better articulated and focused. Therefore, we will not pursue publication of the article in the Journal." They did not reference the revisions or any specifics about the paper after almost 1 year of work from me and seven reviewers. The decision read as though it was a desk rejection, even though the paper had been through 2 rounds of revise and resubmit. Upon my asking for more detailed information about why there was a rejection decision, my email was ignored. I would not recommend this journal to anyone purely for the way the editorial staff has conducted themselves.
After re-submission, I received a second round of comments from 6 of the 7 reviewers. The majority commented on how well I had dealt with the first round of comments and many said it was ready for publication or just needed a few final edits. While this process was certainly longer and more intense that normal, I do believe a better paper emerged out of it and that is great.
I finally received a decision from the editor simply reading "I found the contribution of the paper hard to identify. The article could be better articulated and focused. Therefore, we will not pursue publication of the article in the Journal." They did not reference the revisions or any specifics about the paper after almost 1 year of work from me and seven reviewers. The decision read as though it was a desk rejection, even though the paper had been through 2 rounds of revise and resubmit. Upon my asking for more detailed information about why there was a rejection decision, my email was ignored. I would not recommend this journal to anyone purely for the way the editorial staff has conducted themselves.
Motivation:
The editorial decision took quite long. However, the decision letter was very detailed and informative.
Motivation:
Generic recommendation to submit to specialty journal. Not sure if they read carefully, as the suggested journals / journal topics were not relevant for the manuscript.
Motivation:
Firstly, I would like to underline that the time was very long. Indeed, I remember that the review process by the reviewers took less than one month but the manuscript stayed a very long time before and after with the editor (4 months in total !).
Secondly, if it really was a problem of scope why sending it to reviewers (wasting their time, and mine at the same time), and taking so long to make this decision ?
Finally, one of the review was positive (with few changes that we've done since) but the second one was not really constructive.
Secondly, if it really was a problem of scope why sending it to reviewers (wasting their time, and mine at the same time), and taking so long to make this decision ?
Finally, one of the review was positive (with few changes that we've done since) but the second one was not really constructive.
Motivation:
The process overall was excellent, but the reviews took a lot of time.
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers seemed to be experts and considerded also the details of the manuscript (for instance an incorrect index of a variable). The process was fast and uncomplicated.
Motivation:
The review system is speedy. This is helpful for the authors.
Motivation:
Overall, I was happy with the whole process. The only downside was that one of the reviewers clearly did not read the manuscript properly, but simply wrote a few lines with general questions (which were all answered in the manuscript upon closer reading). The other 2 reviewers' comments were useful however, and the editor also read the manuscript, so it was compensated for.
Motivation:
the revision process was good, It took 4 month for acceptance. But I found a problem in proof-editing.
Motivation:
The review period was too long (almost 6 months) and the editor decided to reject the paper, even having only minor revisions from the two reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were so severe, but excellent that our manuscript has been improved by their comments. We appreciate the reviewers for their efforts to improve our manuscript.
Motivation:
The review system of Oncotarget is so speedy. This is so helpful for the authors.
Motivation:
After a initial review the paper was a reject and resubmit. I took the reviews seriously and resubmitted in about 6 weeks. The reviews were gery helpful.