Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The whole process took a reasonable time (a bit more than 6 months) and review quality was good and improved the manuscript. I appreciate that the journal is also asking to improve the paper visibility by adding an image and a blog post.
Motivation:
The editors at this journal are lovely and helpful with good constructive advise. However the whole process takes too long overall compared to other journals and so while I have enjoyed publishing in this journal (four times now) I will likely try elsewhere with my papers next time, for a quicker result.
Motivation:
The status update on the website was slow but the editorial office responds swiftly.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
Motivation:
Quick rejection with a short, but understandable reasoning.
Motivation:
The editor requested three reports to my paper. The usual procedure is two, but originaly the journal received two conflicting reports. Although my paper was formaly reject in the first round, the editor was clear enough, in the communicating letter, that they would be happy to reconsider my work after revision and that the new version would be sent to the original reviewers.
Motivation:
Generic response without any feedback of concerns related to the manuscript making difficult to accept that it was given sufficient consideration/appreciation by the editorial team
Motivation:
The work of both editors and production was excellent and fast. The reviewers were obviously professionals in the field. I recommend to publish in this journal.
Motivation:
4 reviews were unusual. But the editor gave a fair decision, I thought.
Motivation:
There were three viewers. The suggestions they made were very constructive. Each of them raised some issues, which were fair, addressable and helped us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Desk reject: relatively quickly. It was fair, the paper was not the BEST fit for the journal. Sent elsewhere.
Motivation:
The article was published in a special issue of this journal.
Motivation:
Only two reviews received, even though a third reviewer accepted initially (who did not submit a review).
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
Motivation:
Time to the first decision was slow, but after 1st review was more quickly.
Motivation:
The original submission was done earlier and editor returned the manuscript due to two small technical errors. In my honest opinion, it could have been corrected after the review process and this cost me two more weeks.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 30.4 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Relatively speedy handling.
Editor made his own judgement about reviewer comments, based on their quality.
Pretty bad post-acceptance proof processing by the production staff.
Editor made his own judgement about reviewer comments, based on their quality.
Pretty bad post-acceptance proof processing by the production staff.
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!