Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They responded remarkably quick, and the feedback was very helpful both at the level of detail and that of the argument.
Motivation:
The administrational handling was excellent. Unfortunately, the peer review comments were not quite elaborated.
Motivation:
The submission itself was easy and the review process overall quite fast and painless.
Motivation:
The review process was really fast and reviewer´s comments really helped to further improve the manuscript. Processing after second resubmission and proof-reading was within 11 hours, so increadible fast.
Motivation:
very rapid and helful process
Motivation:
On the positive side, the editorial manager system of the journal is excellent. However, if some of the reviewers are either not familiar with the literature on the given topic or they are busy promoting their own related work, the chances of a real scientific discussion are severely limited.
Motivation:
The first review round took a long time. Although the issue was not with the journal - they had to change the reviewer, proactive informing would have been nice.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was submitted in 2016, but we did not receive any review until 2018. Every 3-4 months we wrote emails, but the manager claimed he could not recruit reviewers. We ourselves provided 10 reviewer candidacies. In 2018 we received one review, which claimed that our manuscript "was very interesting. The content within the paper was well developed and the research was completed thoroughly. From a technical aspect, the paper was done well. However, the paper faced many grammatical errors including the misuse of commas". In the same email our manuscript was rejected without giving us a chance to correct the grammar. We tried to appeal to the Principal Editor, but received just a formal reply. Next month we submitted our manuscript to Fuel Processing Technology. It was reviewed and published in less than 2 months
Motivation:
The Editor wrote: "I have read through the manuscript, and while it appears to be a careful study, it does not appear to meet the aims and scope of TALANTA. Talanta publishes original articles dealing with significant advances in analytical methodology."
Motivation:
After submission, we received about 30 comments from three reviewers. Nearly all of them were relevant, only one was clearly contradictory. After we revised the manuscript, in the second round of review we got comments mostly regarding English. We did not use any professional editing service, although none of us are native English speakers. The journal did not edit our manuscript before publishing.
Motivation:
the usual comment, does not falls under the scope
Motivation:
This is the worst journal you will ever see. after keeping my paper for 5 months almost, the reviewer comment was " I suggest to reject the manuscript".
Motivation:
Strange, possibly biased and short 1/3 page reviews
Motivation:
Editor offered very lengthy and explanatory explanation of the shortcomings of the article. We addressed them and the article was published on a same-IF journal.
Motivation:
Editor rejected manuscript suggesting existing evidence was provided elsewhere. When asked to suggest the articles that provided that evidence the editor couldn't mention any. Overall, poor editing work.
Motivation:
The reviews were good and the editorial management was also good. However, the initial round of reviews was excessively long- many many months, which was very difficult. The excessive duration of time for the initial review is the main motivator for the review process rating as above
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
I found 4 weeks an unacceptably long time to wait for a desk rejection. I even emailed to the editorial office to find out what was going on, but got a meaningless one-line reply. When other journals can make a decision with 48 hours, I find 4 weeks inexcusable.
18.2 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor's expert manner and the scientific high quality comments from the reviewers indicate the quality of this journal. Though at the beginning it took two months for assigning the editor, which was due to editorial board changes, the rest of the peer review process was fast and smooth.
Motivation:
Terribly long for an immediate rejection, we lost our time.
We wonder if we were in competition with one of the editor who is working in the same field. He wasn't the handling editor of the paper but we wouldn't be surprised if the paper was send to him for internal review, this would explain the immediate rejection after such a long time.
We wonder if we were in competition with one of the editor who is working in the same field. He wasn't the handling editor of the paper but we wouldn't be surprised if the paper was send to him for internal review, this would explain the immediate rejection after such a long time.
Motivation:
Review process took too long. 5 reviews were included. 4 out of 5 were not useful. 1 reviewer performed a detailed, thoughtful review which was hard to conform to but improved the manuscript after editing.
Motivation:
One reviewer gave an excellent report, the other was terrible. The first reviewer asked for extensive additional experiments, all perfectly relevant. The second reviewer advised to reject the paper despite being incompetent on the subject (most of his criticisms didn't make sens). In the end the editor choose to reject the paper, saying that doing everything the first reviewer was asking for was too much work for a review. Overall the all process was quick, we were just disapointed that one of the reviewers was not qualified on the subject.