Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The response was relatively quick (6 days). They seem to have wanted a more infection-related material (macrophage infection model etc) to "broaden the target audience" while our paper was more mechanistic/pure molecular biology in prokaryotes. They suggested to send to their sister journal Nature Communications instead.
Motivation:
Possibly the Associate Editor himself reviewed the paper and pointed out the mistakes and he was correct in rejecting the paper!
Motivation:
I received constructive comments from reviewers, which could improve the quality of our paper. Although the review took a little longer, the overall review process was not bad.
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
Motivation:
My sense is that the journal just didn't find our study interesting enough. Comments from reviewers were mainly positive, though the few critiques they did have will be helpful for resubmitting the paper elsewhere.
Motivation:
The comments from the reviewers and editorial team were very helpful however the time to the first decision was slow.
Motivation:
The editor has not even read the paper and the reviewers' comments. In the second review, I received 1 accept, 1 major, and 1 revise and resubmit which the later one has completely misunderstood the paper, the editor has not checked the validity of the reviewer's comment and decided the revise and resubmit for the second time. It is worth to mention that the reviewer with the revise and resubmit decision declared that he/she is not familiar with the subject !!!! In general, I saw a weak and unprofessional performance by the editor and I will not submit any paper there and I do not recommend this journal.
Motivation:
O editor tentou me vender várias vezes o serviço de correção gramatical da editora.
Motivation:
A third reviewer was requested for the review after 4 weeks of submission. The first reviewer liked the paper a lot, considering it novel and important without major issues. The second reviewer stated that the paper is not suitable for the journal without providing any scientific suggestions.
Motivation:
I would highly recommend publishing within Sports Medicine. The review process significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript and all reviewer reports and editorial decisions were extremely timely.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, especially given the final decision was rejection.
Motivation:
The issues they warrented regarding methodology was not a big deal. We could have been given a chance for a correction. Although we sent an e mail for a resubmission, so far there has been no answer.
Motivation:
I found the editorial process very professional in general and I was quite happy with the result. Still, it was a bit unfortunate that once my manuscript was actually accepted with minor revisions by one editor, after I made the requested changes, the new editor insisted on recruiting a new reviewer, who of course had a very different perspective. In principle, you can do this for ages and every single person will have something to suggest, yet the paper will never be 'perfect'. So I would say that the review process was absolutely fair but a bit tiresome.
Motivation:
All in all, I can't recommend it. The reviews were ok, but the editorial office was extremely unresponsive. After a request for some minor revisions that we carried out in less than 3 weeks, we were left without any information regarding our manuscript for almost a year. Meanwhile we sent plenty of emails, with no answer. However it resulted in an 'accept', it was a very disappointing experience.
Motivation:
The first and (arguably) second revision clearly improved quality. Thereafter, only incremental improvement(s). Referees made contradictory recommendations, seeded to get lost in irrelevant details, and did not always understand the nomenclature. After the 3rd revision they wanted some request from the first revision reverted (so it appeaed).
The editorial office was unhelpful (no decision making power, stonewalled contacting the editor).
I googled the editor, sent him an email to his work email (not the editorial email). He responded within 30 min (on a Sunday!!), reviewed all evidence from the 18 months /4 revisions process. It was all the time handled by a sub-editor who did not make a decision, it seemed.
We had a conversation over the phone the next day and later the day the Journal sent an acceptance letter.
At last a satisfactory outcome and the editor handled it professionally at the end.
The editorial office was unhelpful (no decision making power, stonewalled contacting the editor).
I googled the editor, sent him an email to his work email (not the editorial email). He responded within 30 min (on a Sunday!!), reviewed all evidence from the 18 months /4 revisions process. It was all the time handled by a sub-editor who did not make a decision, it seemed.
We had a conversation over the phone the next day and later the day the Journal sent an acceptance letter.
At last a satisfactory outcome and the editor handled it professionally at the end.
Motivation:
I appreciated the quick decision. The journal also offered to transfer our manuscript (without reformatting) to one of a couple of affiliated journals they recommended. We didn't feel those were a great fit (and probably are just generic recommendations they make to everyone?), so we did not choose to go that route.
Motivation:
The EIC was extremely helpful in the development of this manuscript and the reviewers were both knowledgeable and timely.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Among three reviewers two reviewers were positive in their knowledge and the third reviewer mentioned that literature review was not enough for publishing in this journal. They also mentioned typo errors and that was not visible for other two reviewers and it has not mentioned clearly what kind of typo error.
Though two reviewers submitted positive comment but based on one negative review that too literature content the manuscript was rejected.
Though two reviewers submitted positive comment but based on one negative review that too literature content the manuscript was rejected.