Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewers made useful comments. One recommended a minor revision and the other a rejection. The editor asked us to re-submit the paper. In the end, one of the reviewers disagreed with a couple of our claims in the manuscript but he was OK with it being published. I was very happy with the editor and reviewers overall.
Motivation:
Reviewers raised some valid concerns, the manuscript was improved by their comments.
Motivation:
The first round of review was already frustrating. One of the reviewer gave good feedback with a lot of thoughts on improvement and also some more tricky questions that we addressed in the next version of the manuscript. The other reviewer gave no feedback, just an "outright reject" without any reasoning. When resubmitting the manuscript, we asked for another reviewer as it was obvious that the second reviewer just wanted to block the publication in general. The editor refused to search for another reviewer and said we should "convince" him/her.
After another two months without any reply from the second reviewer (the first one accepted the manuscript in its revised version) we decided to withdraw the manuscript and resubmit it to another journal. It was accepted there after 6 weeks with 7 (!) really positive reviewer feedbacks. We will never submit anything to Nature Energy again.
After another two months without any reply from the second reviewer (the first one accepted the manuscript in its revised version) we decided to withdraw the manuscript and resubmit it to another journal. It was accepted there after 6 weeks with 7 (!) really positive reviewer feedbacks. We will never submit anything to Nature Energy again.
Motivation:
I found the revision process too long, but the revisions improved the ms.
Motivation:
Even though an editor from another, related journal (Expert Systems with Applications) proposed to transfer the manuscript to this journal for reasons of fit, the editor of ASC rejected it straight away because it was deemed out of scope for the journal.
Motivation:
The main reason for rejection given by the editor was that the manuscript primarly considered a validation study, and that BRM tends not to publish validation studies.
Motivation:
One review was of good quality, constructive and definitely improved the manuscript. The other review was extensive and perceived as aggressive and abusive with words being used like nonsensical, clumsy, incorrect, rudimentary, should not be accepted, too elementary, too vague. Some reviewers apparently lack sensitivity for what ever reasons I can only guess. I just want to mention that these types of reviews are unfair and hurt. In the end the editor handled this review process correctly but in my opinion the editor should have taken action earlier in the process, whether by editing this review before sending it our or in doubt of the quality of the manuscript, sending the manuscript to another reviewer.
Motivation:
I am very happy with the review process and thankful for the immense effort put into the manuscript by the reviewers and Editor. I particularly thank the Editor for being helpful and encouraging, this makes a great difference for young researchers. SS&M follows a rigorous review process and provides a platform for health researchers who are from interdisciplinary disciplines.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not appear to be experts on the topic. The comments were not at all harsh, but showed lack of knowledge of both the state of the art and the terminology used in the field.
I also did not really appreciate the suggestion to revise the manuscript and send it to their much more expensive "sister" journal.
I also did not really appreciate the suggestion to revise the manuscript and send it to their much more expensive "sister" journal.
Motivation:
The editors explained the delayed decision, because of the need for a third reviewer. They shortly summarized the different positions and key arguments, based on which they decided to reject the paper. They did this in a constructive way.
Motivation:
The reviews were brief (~1 paragraph) and unhelpful, but the associate editor gave extensive comments that were helpful and appreciated, I think because s/he saw the reviews as insufficient. 3 months of the total time was my tardiness in getting revisions back. Positive experience overall.
Motivation:
A long time was taken (more than a year). No mistakes were found. No reason was given for rejection and reviews did not provide an opinion of the scientific value of the paper.
Motivation:
The editor provided a very fair rationale for the rejection and offered some helpful feedback. That said, it is extremely unfortunate that it took five weeks to provide a simple desk rejection. It should not take 5 weeks for an editor to read a paper, reject it, and offer one or two sentences of feedback.
Motivation:
The manuscript was processed very quickly and efficiently. The editor gave a detailed reply justifying why he rejected the paper and did encourage us to resubmit the paper if we decided to expand it into a larger research paper.
Motivation:
16 months for review is unacceptable. I waited patiently until the 5th month and only received excuses about the length of the review process. I asked to withdraw my paper after 12 months, and the editorial staff could not complete this request properly.
The quality of the review was fine, and the article was eventually published elsehwere.
The quality of the review was fine, and the article was eventually published elsehwere.
12.8 weeks
12.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Some of the reviewer feedback was very helpful in a manuscript revision which was then submitted elsewhere. It was disappointing that one of the reviewers did not find the work of interest to the journal, leading to the paper rejection.
Motivation:
One reviewer was positive and constructive, but the other reviewer apart from being rude, did not seemed to be familiar with technical details of similar published studies and also inquired about details which were explicitly stated in the submitted manuscript. Editor was helpful.
Motivation:
Review duration was average, reviewers were helpful and constructive.
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The editor was very helpful. I was happy with the submission process and would recomend this journal.
Motivation:
Editor responded to my questions on the reason for rejection without review