Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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!
Motivation:
I received constructive comments from reviewers, which could improve the quality of our paper. Although the review took a little longer, the overall review process was not bad.
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
Motivation:
My sense is that the journal just didn't find our study interesting enough. Comments from reviewers were mainly positive, though the few critiques they did have will be helpful for resubmitting the paper elsewhere.
Motivation:
The comments from the reviewers and editorial team were very helpful however the time to the first decision was slow.
Motivation:
The editor has not even read the paper and the reviewers' comments. In the second review, I received 1 accept, 1 major, and 1 revise and resubmit which the later one has completely misunderstood the paper, the editor has not checked the validity of the reviewer's comment and decided the revise and resubmit for the second time. It is worth to mention that the reviewer with the revise and resubmit decision declared that he/she is not familiar with the subject !!!! In general, I saw a weak and unprofessional performance by the editor and I will not submit any paper there and I do not recommend this journal.
Motivation:
O editor tentou me vender várias vezes o serviço de correção gramatical da editora.
Motivation:
A third reviewer was requested for the review after 4 weeks of submission. The first reviewer liked the paper a lot, considering it novel and important without major issues. The second reviewer stated that the paper is not suitable for the journal without providing any scientific suggestions.
Motivation:
I would highly recommend publishing within Sports Medicine. The review process significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript and all reviewer reports and editorial decisions were extremely timely.