Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A very rapid decision, rapid review process. Reviewers were positive, not hugely helpful comments though, but it was a fairly complete manuscript.
Motivation:
Fast procedure from 3 referees, reports correct.
Motivation:
This journal is very serious about its publication standards and quality. It gave me revisions about 15 times for which the quality of my manuscript has been increased quite a lot. I think this journal is a very well venue for publication.
Motivation:
The Editors were incredibly fast and helpful during the overall process.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was fast and the reviewers made some very helpful comments which were easy to understand and to include in the final manuscript (e.g. to add an additional scheme drawing to our manuscript for easier understanding of the experiments).
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviews were of extremely poor quality,
first reviewer had 5 comments;
the first comment was attacking the very first sentence of the introduction, a question a first year bachelor student would have found ridiculous.
2 were actually already addressed in the manuscript (for example comment about uploading data for repreducibility, which we had, and clearly mentioned in the data availability section)
2 were easily covered (minor details to explain further
the second reviewers comments were restricted to 1; do you have any additional information about the public data you used (which we obviously could have looked up and incorporated in the manuscript)
all in all, bad reviews, and simply not enough grounds for the editor to reject the paper on; the least he could have done is send it out to a 3rd reviewer, hoping for a decent assessment of our work
first reviewer had 5 comments;
the first comment was attacking the very first sentence of the introduction, a question a first year bachelor student would have found ridiculous.
2 were actually already addressed in the manuscript (for example comment about uploading data for repreducibility, which we had, and clearly mentioned in the data availability section)
2 were easily covered (minor details to explain further
the second reviewers comments were restricted to 1; do you have any additional information about the public data you used (which we obviously could have looked up and incorporated in the manuscript)
all in all, bad reviews, and simply not enough grounds for the editor to reject the paper on; the least he could have done is send it out to a 3rd reviewer, hoping for a decent assessment of our work
Motivation:
The process was straight forward. The manuscript was handled in a professional manner. One of the reviewers was certainly though, but fair, and the manuscript improve in quality through the comments. The preprints looked beautiful; pretty good editorial work overall.
Motivation:
The handling took long (overall more than 10 months, 3 revised versions submitted).
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
Motivation:
I think the revision process was perfect and allowed me learn more about writing and submitting scientific work. Thanks
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were correct. However, there was one reviewer that found my paper without interest for a journal in the two review rounds. Even though, my paper was accepted.
Furthermore, I found the second review process quite long.
Furthermore, I found the second review process quite long.
Motivation:
My paper was first rejected to address the reviewers concerns. The reviews were not of very good quality and they asked me to add their own citations. After I resubmitted, the chief editor made a mistake and rejected my paper. I had then to contact him to reverse his decision, and after a while my paper was accepted.
Motivation:
The reviewers found my paper not interesting. However, they didn't prove with references that it was not original compared to other works.
Motivation:
Takes for a long time.
Motivation:
Very long time for the first inspection, while, from the time point the manuscript was submitted, the only status shown on the website was "under consideration". An internal transfer to a completely different journal was proposed, although the scope of the new journal did not fit the manuscript's topic at all. It is, therefore, highly possible that the editor did not check/read the article.
Motivation:
The first round of the peer-review took very long. While the editor was fair with his decision following the first-peer review, an additional review process after the revision would have been much better instead of immediate rejection by the editor, given that a large number of experiments were performed during the revision and that the, by the editor demanded, additional experiment was not fitting the scope of the manuscript and normally counts as an own publication similarly large journals.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely slow and communication with the editors was not fluid.
13.7 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
There are many processes until competing a submission.
Motivation:
Good communication with journal. The three reviewers raised questions that greatly helped us in clarifying our manuscript. Some of the questions raised about our statistical analyses seemed rather basic and perhaps could have been filtered out by the editor. Overall, we were very satisfied with the experience.
Motivation:
Rejection by the editorial staff after a ridiculous 7.5 weeks. They judged the work to be "too specialized to be competitive". Complete waste of two whole months. No feedback that would be useful to improve the manuscript. I'm extremely disappointed.
Motivation:
The journal was efficient and thorough with the paper. In the first round we had 2 reviewers suggest acceptance after major revisions and one review who suggested rejection, but his justifications were not grounded. The editor recognized this, however, and we were given a reject and resubmit. The editor sent the paper back to one of the original reviewers, who indicated he was satisfied with the changes, and to two additional reviewers, who both wanted minor revisions. The editor indicated at this stage that he/she thought the paper had important results and if we could mange the revisions the paper would not go back to review. We made the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. The editor did a great job - 5 reviewers was rigorous and the paper was handled quickly and efficiently. The reviewer reports were also very well done. The reviewers praised the paper but also gave very relevant critiques that improved the quality. I was very satisfied with the review process and happy to have the paper land in the journal.