Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We failed to communicate our results well in this paper, and received rather confusing reports from the reviewers. That's not going to cut it with a journal like ESR.
Motivation:
The paper was quickly rejected because the editor felt that it was not a fundamental advance in our understanding. I got the option to submit to the sister journal of Nature Climate Change.
Motivation:
Other suitable journal was suggested. The suggested journal did not fit to the topic of our manuscript.
Motivation:
After 7.5 months, the editor only managed to obtain one external review. This one review was mildly negative; most comments were related to stylistic concerns or requests for clarification of some points. The reviewer
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
Motivation:
The editor declined without reasonable reason.
Motivation:
Although the decision was not what we wanted, the review process was quite high quality. The reviewers and AE were quite knowledgeable on the topic. Although we had a philosophical divergence with one of the reviewers, the AE supported us on that point and so did not let that be a deciding factor. The reviews were received in average time for journals in our field. Considering that the eventual decision was a rejection, I'm glad it did not drag for more than two rounds--the journal gave us a fair attempt to try to retell our story. Overall, I consider this a good-quality process for a rejection outcome.
Motivation:
Review processing time was average, but reviewers have raised issues that we can not solve right away.
Motivation:
After the first round of reviews (which we received end of February 2018), we addressed every point and updated the paper (March 2018). Reviews were helpful and made our paper better. However, after 2 months (end of May 2018), we were rejected.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
Motivation:
Even though it was rejected, we received excellent advice. We restructured the manuscript and performed new experiments before submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
Terrible journal - editors will keep saying they are interested in your manuscript but taking way too long to handle them, and request major edits. Too much effort for a 1.3 impact factor journal.
Motivation:
Manuscript has too many figures and tables was given as the main reason for rejection, which leads me to believe this journal is interested only in publishing abstract and vague articles with no focus on scientific detail or rigour. Which is not surprising, given they have had retract a large number of previous papers with erroneous results and data. Not a recommended journal.
Motivation:
We do not feel the manuscript was throughly assessed, rejection was due to it not being in the top 10%. It is not clear what top 10% means if work is rejected even even though it does not have a strong precedent and had potentially very broad applications. The recommendation was to transfer to Org Biomol Chem. It appears to us that the manuscript only received a cursory look (no details on why it is not in the top 10%). A response from us to the editor's decision was not followed through in a timely manner, requiring a reminder. At the time of the reminder, we decided to withdraw the manuscript and submit to another venue that has been much fairer in its handling of our manuscripts, and to avoid further delays. It is our view that good papers are shunted to other journals within a publisher to promote IFs of those journals.
Motivation:
The editor sent a rejection after "having evaluated it myself" (apparently, not having proofread the reply for typographical errors), and having deemed it unsuitable for the "broad readership of JACS and recommended sending it to JOC. Similar but more specialized (limited) chemistry was published in the same journal, which appears to have made the editor consider our work "well known" at this time. There are substantial differences in both the outcome and the potential path for that outcome in our work as compared to the published work. Therefore, it seems like the editor may have skimmed through the abstract and possibly one scheme. We did not feel that proper review of a scientific discovery was undertaken.
Motivation:
The decision was taken using the only negative, unchanged report of one reviewer (evidently biased) during the review process against two other very positive review reports. The authors do not understand the reason behind it.
Motivation:
After 12 months of waiting, my coauthors and I received a two-sentence desk rejection from the editor. I wrote to him asking for an explanation; have not heard back and don't expect to.
Motivation:
It took 3 month for review process.
Motivation:
It was an outstanding review process with JEPP. The editors are very active, serious, and encouraging. Good reviewer selection, speedy process, no delays.
Immediately accepted after 0.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Very Fast!
Motivation:
User-friendly submission portal, but a disappointingly long waiting time to hear something back from the editor (33 days).
Motivation:
Exceptionally slow review process, with no communication from the journal. Even when we requested updates they just gave non-specific responses. The slowness of review is not acceptable, especially as the manuscript was time sensitive in regards to its material.