Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 said paper was great and should be published
Reviewer 2 asked for clarifications and improvements
Reviewer 3 wrote an illegible, incredibly negative review and clearly did not have sufficient english language skills to understand the paper. Also asked for experiments that would be ethically questionable in most countries.
Regardless, we did our best to respond and altered the manuscript to appease the negative reviewer. The editor sent the paper back to Reviewer 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 was happy with our changes and recommended publish. Reviewer 3, yet again wrote an aggressive, borderline illegible response and recommended reject.
Unfortunately the editor completely ignored two clearly worded, well thought out reviews that recommended publish and went with what could be seen by most as a hostile review. If the editor had bothered to read the review it would be clear that the reviewer was not suitable for the role. We are very disappointed that he allowed this reviewer to have so much sway.
Reviewer 2 asked for clarifications and improvements
Reviewer 3 wrote an illegible, incredibly negative review and clearly did not have sufficient english language skills to understand the paper. Also asked for experiments that would be ethically questionable in most countries.
Regardless, we did our best to respond and altered the manuscript to appease the negative reviewer. The editor sent the paper back to Reviewer 2 and 3. Reviewer 2 was happy with our changes and recommended publish. Reviewer 3, yet again wrote an aggressive, borderline illegible response and recommended reject.
Unfortunately the editor completely ignored two clearly worded, well thought out reviews that recommended publish and went with what could be seen by most as a hostile review. If the editor had bothered to read the review it would be clear that the reviewer was not suitable for the role. We are very disappointed that he allowed this reviewer to have so much sway.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was sent to 5 reviewers, and some rejected and others accepted the paper, all reviewers did a careful analysis of the paper, suggesting good changes. The process was relatively strict, but as it resulted in the accepted paper, it was worth all the effort, corrections and re-submission.
Motivation:
Rather long time for a desk rejection, a transfer offer was given
Motivation:
An appeal with Divisional Associate Editor was filed, given unsubstantiated declination by the Editor, that conflicted with recommendations of the reviewers. It too resulted in a declination. Communication read like a standard template.
Motivation:
The review process took around two months but the editorial department was extremely fast. Once submitted, the manuscript was immediately sent out to the reviewers, following which it was under review for the specified period of time. After receiving minor revisions from the reviewers, the manuscript was accepted the day on which the revised manuscript was submitted to the editor. One of the reviewers asked insightful questions while the other was a bit confused about the nature of the work presented in the manuscript.
Motivation:
We decided to give sage open a try after having good experiences with other OA journals. Three months after submitting and still no editor assigned, we emailed sage and got stock "be patient replies" after asking to pull the submission, they assured us they would find a suitable editor ASAP and asked us to give them one more week. They finally found and editor a couple of week later, a few months later we got reviews and a minor revisions. Four months went by after submitting revisions and not hearing form them. After enquiring they told us the reviews were back a while ago, and the editor was overdue but was no longer responding to emails. After another few months of being given the run around we decided to bull the submission. This is one to stay away from.
Motivation:
Very disappointed with the editorial handling of this manuscript. It usually took ~2 weeks to pass the front office and reach the editor's desk. Then it took another ~2-4 weeks until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Add 8-12 weeks for reviews (which is fine). Rinse and repeat for 3 demanding revisions, and you end up needing 1.5 years just to get through peer review. When we had to contact the editor in between revisions, we would not get a response for weeks until we directly emailed them at their institutional address. Overall this process has been frustratingly slow - would not recommend.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews by clearly knowledgeable reviewers, who rated our paper not extensive and detailed enough, which might be true for a journal of ths reputation
Motivation:
The review process was long but it improved the ms
Motivation:
The Frontiers in Microbiology interactive review system is quite good. It allows exchanges between authors, editor and reviewers in a very dynamic way. The reviewer reports were also quite good and really helped improvng the manuscript. Manuscript handling time was also quite fast.
11.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This manuscript was handled poorly by the previous editor but as of 2019, the new editor has been responsive and professional.
Motivation:
O processo editorial da Revista de Estudos Criminais é de qualidade, com celeridade e gentil atenção aos autores. A aprovação retornou em menos de 2 meses. Não recebi os pareceres integrais, mas somente pequenas sugestões formais de aprimoramento. Há revisão ortográfica por profissional. A editora envia um exemplar impresso ao autor. Recomendo a submissão para a revista.
Motivation:
Manuscript passed the "To Advisor" stage after initial submission and stayed "under considerations" with a given editor for few more days. In the end it was a standard desk rejection with the text below.
"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Motivation:
Publishing with Current Biology was a great experience. The editorial team was exceptionally helpful and very responsive. The reviews we received were critical yet thoughtful and constructive. Ultimately, our paper was available online within about 5.5 months from the original submission. I would definitely submit another manuscript here in the future.
Motivation:
The manuscript was suggested to be published in a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
We submitted a manuscript to this journal about microbial cell wall structure. The handling time of the manuscript was fast, which is the only positive remark we have about this experience. The quality of the reviewers reports was beyong abysmal. The manuscript was clearly handed to people who had very little experience in the subject area. They did not question any experimental aspect or the discussion of our data. We used biophysical methods and one reviewer actually used the phrase "Byophysical data do not have biological relevance", which is a very problematic remark. Said reviewer also couldn't be professional enough to phrase his feelings towards the manuscript in a polite manner, while displaying a very poor knowledge of our subject area's literature. Sadly, we were not given a right to respond to his comments, which would have been very easy to do. The manuscript is now published in a much better journal.
Motivation:
Expeditious, no-nonsense review process.
Motivation:
expeditious reviews with reasonable requests
Motivation:
Quick and reasonable reviews.
Motivation:
It was not clear whether the reviewers recommended rejection or major revisions. Both reviewers provided detailed assessment with the list of parts, which needed correction, which implied that major revisions was their preferred verdict. However, the Editor rejected the manuscript. The context implies that our methodology was the major issue, especially the absence of XRD and Raman spectral analysis.