Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was swift enough, although in general my impression was that the referees addressed those points that I never made in my paper. Yet, I had to respond in a way as if I had made these points in order not to get a rejection.
Motivation:
The associated editor gave very constructive feedback and offered specific reasons of why he thought the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
Motivation:
After an internal review process by the editor, I was notified that my article did not fit the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor took care to offer an explanatory and encouraging reply, providing advice on other journals to submit my article and suggestions on how to improve it.
Motivation:
The editor sent a very personalized and encouraging commentary, and recommended alternative specialist outlets which might be more appropriate for the paper.
Motivation:
Offer to trasfer to the Taylor & Francis’ Cogent Series (www.cogentoa.com) open journal platform instead.
Motivation:
Very quick editorial response. Reason for rejection was: "Although we appreciate that the reported new findings are likely to be of interest to others working in the field, I am afraid we do not feel that the findings represent the kind of significant new insights that would warrant publication in Genome Biology, which is aimed at a broad readership of biologists."
3.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Firstly, I have not seen a journal thus kind to the authors. The managing editor speaks too humbly and a very quick response was experienced. I think this journal is a good one for publishing manuscripts though in my opinion the template may be changed.
Motivation:
The handling by the editorial office was great and the reviewing process was very fast.
One of the reviewers was also quite helpful, while the other one obviously did not have much knowledge of the topic our publication was about. In some cases he/she made completely contradictory comments in comparison to the other reviewer. This was quite annoying as the manuscript was submitted for a special issue concerning exactly our area of work, so I was expecting all the reviewers to be more expert in this field.
One of the reviewers was also quite helpful, while the other one obviously did not have much knowledge of the topic our publication was about. In some cases he/she made completely contradictory comments in comparison to the other reviewer. This was quite annoying as the manuscript was submitted for a special issue concerning exactly our area of work, so I was expecting all the reviewers to be more expert in this field.
Motivation:
La experiencia fue excelente, todo el proceso se llevo a cabo de manera transparente y rigurosa, lo que permitió que siempre estuviera informada, satisfecha con los resultados y con la mayor disposición.
Motivation:
Very constructive comments from the reviewers.
Motivation:
The comments from the reviewers were highly constructive and helped to improve the article. The Editor was very helpful and assertive.
Motivation:
The Editor was very friendly and helpful. Reviewers suggested appropriate amendments.
Motivation:
Process at PNAS is quite opaque: for example, they do not share the identify of the Editorial Board Members.
Motivation:
Very good experience with the journal.
Serious processes... allright.
Serious processes... allright.
Motivation:
The editor raised some methodological issues regarding my manuscript. According to the editor, I used a path model which is discouraged by the journal. Also, in a short note he mentioned that the survey used did not meet best practices. However, I didn't use a path model in my paper which makes the judgment of the editor incomprehensible. Also, the editor did not reply to my request to clarify what exactly was missing regarding the survey. Although I was invited to revise and resubmit, due to the lack of in-depth feedback I was unable to do so.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Disappointing that it wasn't even sent for review
Motivation:
Good choice of reviewers. Good comments of the reviewers. But the process took too much time.
Motivation:
Acceptable time to first decision. One of the reviewers made a right methodological critique, but impossible to resolve in the context of the study. The other reviewer did not provide interesting critiques.
Motivation:
The submission and review process was very straightforward and professional. I would recommend submitting at this journal.
Motivation:
Managed to excite the reviewers, but they wanted more details on the models and hypotheses = rejected.
Motivation:
The editor was extremely helpful and effective throughout the entire process. Our paper was initially rejected after one positive and one negative review, but we appealed the decision. The editor was quite welcoming and positive with our appeal and gave us every chance to state our case. After a long, hard-fought processes we were allowed to submit a revised version. After another round of major revision the paper was accepted. Altogether the process was very long, but this was due to the long appeal process, not the actual review process. The handling of the paper was quite fast and effective. The editor was very pleasant and did a great job with the paper.
Motivation:
The editor stated in his rejection letter that "The manuscript does not fit the scope of JIMF." On journal's website, it is however highlighted that "journal devoted to theoretical and empirical research in the fields of international monetary economics, international finance,..." My paper contained both theoretical and empirical analysis on international finance. Based on Journal of Economic Literature classification, which is used in the profession to classify fields in economics, my paper very well fits the scope of JIMF. I found the editor decision arbitrary and baseless, not to mention it took three months for him to decide my paper does not fit this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow. Editor took 1 month to send paper to the reviewers and reviewers took another month to reply.