Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Nature has a good system of transferring rejected papers to a different Nature publication with a shared user account.
Motivation:
The journal claims a 1st review time of 2.5 weeks, so it came as a great disappointment that the process took four months. In addition, there was only a single reviewer report that was 1 (one) paragraph (and 6 sentences!!). I'm not bothered by the rejection from the journal, as there are many journals with a similar citation score/impact factor, more so that it took months for such lame and poor-quality feedback.
Motivation:
Did not hear any response from the editor for a year, so withdrew my manuscript. Will submit elsewhere.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 503.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We initially sent the article for review in January 2022. After six months of hearing nothing, we asked for an update and they said they hadn't found any reviewers and requested a list. We provided an extensive list of reviewers. In November 2022, January 2023, and February 2023 we requested specific information about the status of our manuscript and a timeline for when we can expect the response; in November and January we were told generally by the JEO Assistant that the article was still with reviewers, with the response in January including that the JEO Assistant had contacted the editor to expedite the process. In February the JEO Assistant indicated that the email we sent had been forwarded to the editor for comment, with the Office Staff intending to inform us when the editor responded. After another month with no comment, we contacted the editor-in-chief about the article, asking for a decision to be made. We received no response, although activity in the portal indicated that someone accessed the article (updating its 'last action taking' tracker) but without changing its status as under review. In early May we requested that the article be withdrawn from the journal and to inform us when this was done, and received no response. We repeated the request again today, with the JEO Assistant quickly acting to withdraw the paper. So in total nearly a year and a half was spent waiting on the first response to a potentially multi-round process.
Throughout this entire process, the Office Staff always responded to us promptly and professionally, but themselves received no responses from the editor. As such, and as recent discussions we've had with others in the field indicated that this is a repeated issue with the journal, we cannot in good faith support this journal. Indeed, it feels as if the choice of the journal to report median time to first response is, whether purposefully or accidentally, hiding that they have a repeated issue of unacceptably long review times and withdrawal periods, especially as time to first decision does not necessarily include papers that were withdrawn due to the review process taking an unprofessionally long time.
Throughout this entire process, the Office Staff always responded to us promptly and professionally, but themselves received no responses from the editor. As such, and as recent discussions we've had with others in the field indicated that this is a repeated issue with the journal, we cannot in good faith support this journal. Indeed, it feels as if the choice of the journal to report median time to first response is, whether purposefully or accidentally, hiding that they have a repeated issue of unacceptably long review times and withdrawal periods, especially as time to first decision does not necessarily include papers that were withdrawn due to the review process taking an unprofessionally long time.
Motivation:
The article was an application note (1.5 pages with 1 figure). It took around 2 weeks before to be submitted to the reviewers. Then there was one month of oscillation between the "With the editor" and "under revision", then other almost 3 weeks for an editorial decision. The comments were not super interesting about the improvement but rather on the documentation. However I have been proposed to direct transfer to bioinformatics Advances (which is taking ages as well: they state that you will get an editorial decision in 3 working days, and after 20 days I'm still waiting)
Motivation:
Too late
Motivation:
Too late and rude. No comments on our study.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and included a good number of reviewers. However, the quality of reviews was relatively low and the process of rejecting and encouraging resubmit as new is a misleading way of handling revisions and artificially boosts the rejection rate of the journal. Also, the editor did not respond to our communication request.
Motivation:
I recently had an extremely disappointing experience with the Tribology International Journal that compelled me to express my concerns regarding its publication practices. It is disheartening to state that this journal appears to be exhibiting clear biases and promoting a racially discriminatory environment.
One of the most glaring issues I noticed when examining the recent publications in the journal is the overwhelming dominance of papers originating from China or authored by individuals of Chinese origin. It is alarming to discover that more than 95% of the articles fall into this category, raising questions about the journal's commitment to impartiality and inclusivity. A balanced representation of research contributions from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds is essential for maintaining the integrity of any scientific journal.
To add to my dismay, when I submitted my own paper to the Tribology International Journal, it was promptly rejected with the vague justification that it was not suitable for their publication. However, what baffled me the most was that the very same article was accepted and recognized as one of the best in another highly reputed tribology journal. This stark discrepancy in evaluation raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the review process employed by Tribology International Journal.
Further examination of the editorial board of the journal revealed that a significant number of the editors also have Chinese origins. While it is important to note that diverse perspectives and expertise should be valued and encouraged, it becomes problematic when such a disproportionate representation compromises the integrity and objectivity of the journal's decision-making process.
Considering the circumstances and my personal experience, I regret to say that I will not be submitting any future articles to the Tribology International Journal. It is crucial for researchers to seek publication avenues that uphold rigorous standards of fairness, equality, and inclusivity. As scientists, we rely on scholarly journals to provide a platform for unbiased dissemination of knowledge, and it is disheartening to witness instances where this ideal is not upheld.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the editorial board of the Tribology International Journal to reflect on the concerns raised here and take steps to rectify any biases or discriminatory practices that may be undermining the journal's reputation. It is essential for the scientific community to promote a diverse and inclusive environment that values contributions from researchers of all backgrounds, ensuring that scientific progress is not hindered by prejudice or favoritism.
Disclaimer: This review reflects the personal experience and opinion of the reviewer and does not intend to make any generalizations about the entire journal or its editorial board.
One of the most glaring issues I noticed when examining the recent publications in the journal is the overwhelming dominance of papers originating from China or authored by individuals of Chinese origin. It is alarming to discover that more than 95% of the articles fall into this category, raising questions about the journal's commitment to impartiality and inclusivity. A balanced representation of research contributions from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds is essential for maintaining the integrity of any scientific journal.
To add to my dismay, when I submitted my own paper to the Tribology International Journal, it was promptly rejected with the vague justification that it was not suitable for their publication. However, what baffled me the most was that the very same article was accepted and recognized as one of the best in another highly reputed tribology journal. This stark discrepancy in evaluation raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the review process employed by Tribology International Journal.
Further examination of the editorial board of the journal revealed that a significant number of the editors also have Chinese origins. While it is important to note that diverse perspectives and expertise should be valued and encouraged, it becomes problematic when such a disproportionate representation compromises the integrity and objectivity of the journal's decision-making process.
Considering the circumstances and my personal experience, I regret to say that I will not be submitting any future articles to the Tribology International Journal. It is crucial for researchers to seek publication avenues that uphold rigorous standards of fairness, equality, and inclusivity. As scientists, we rely on scholarly journals to provide a platform for unbiased dissemination of knowledge, and it is disheartening to witness instances where this ideal is not upheld.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the editorial board of the Tribology International Journal to reflect on the concerns raised here and take steps to rectify any biases or discriminatory practices that may be undermining the journal's reputation. It is essential for the scientific community to promote a diverse and inclusive environment that values contributions from researchers of all backgrounds, ensuring that scientific progress is not hindered by prejudice or favoritism.
Disclaimer: This review reflects the personal experience and opinion of the reviewer and does not intend to make any generalizations about the entire journal or its editorial board.
Motivation:
The process was too slow. In the second and third round of review, little changes were generally requested by reviewers, however it took to much time to have the following decisions by the editor
Motivation:
If it is out of Scope, they must reject from 1-30 days. After peer review process, scope out of journal is not meaningful. That too after 24 months
Motivation:
Editor's comment: "In this case, while we do not question the validity of your work, I am afraid we are not persuaded that these findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
It is too long to take 3 weeks for an editorial rejection.
Motivation:
Editor suggested transfer to Nature Communications.
Motivation:
In any case, the rejection was quick and didn't take too long. I would have appreciated a brief rejection note.
Motivation:
A desk reject is always disappointing, but the editor very clearly read the manuscript and provided a short paragraph of feedback as to why this decision was reached.
Motivation:
The journal was not a match and recommended another journal. The transition to that recommended journal was easy.
Motivation:
The editor only took into account the negative comments of the reviewers and clearly did not read the work in order to analyse them properly. It is fair to say, on the other hand, that the process was fast.
Motivation:
Very responsive editorial team.
The reviewer is professional and helpful.
A great paper submission experience.
The reviewer is professional and helpful.
A great paper submission experience.
5.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
tl;dr: We could have saved so much time if one of the reviewers gave all of their suggestions in a single round.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
Motivation:
Two editors reviewed the research note and deemed it not fit.
Motivation:
Extremely poor handling of the manuscript by a guest editor. Worst experience ever when it comes to editorial handling of a manuscript. 1 reviewer proposed rejection, which can happen and is not such a problem, however the handling of the editor was horrible. Furthermore second reviewer requested minor revisions which makes it rather odd. Paper got stuck in the editorial proces for months after.
Motivation:
The editor took 6 months to decide whether to send the article for external peer review. Six months after receiving the article, he sent it to a reviewer, after we had written to him twice asking for a decision (even though the editor would decide to reject the article without a review, we would prefer this to delaying the process, as his delay in responding was hindering our intention to send the article to another journal). Once the article was sent to an external reviewer, the first review was completed in 18 days. However, the process stalled. A second reviewer was not sought, nor was the decision communicated to the authors. Finally, the editor sent us a rejection decision after we had written to him again asking if what we were experiencing was considered a normal pace.
Our complaint is not about the decision. Of course we respect the decision of the reviewers. Our complaint is about the lack of ethics on the part of the editor who, in particular, delayed the review process and, in the meantime, prevented us from submitting the article to a new journal. This is something that has never happened to us before.
Our complaint is not about the decision. Of course we respect the decision of the reviewers. Our complaint is about the lack of ethics on the part of the editor who, in particular, delayed the review process and, in the meantime, prevented us from submitting the article to a new journal. This is something that has never happened to us before.
35.4 weeks
35.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
The review process took a very long time and the administrator stopped responding to our periodic requests. The reviews themselves indicated that the paper was not read in detail and poorly understood. Even though the reviewers indicated a positive overall impression, the submission was rejected.
Motivation:
I've had faster desk rejections.
Motivation:
A desk reject, but with three lines of thoughtful feedback from the editor and a recommendation for a different journal.
Motivation:
Rapid desk-reject for a topic considered out-of-scope. I appreciate the rapid response.
Motivation:
Quick rejection with a generic reason that the editor claimed cannot be fixed but did not provide much specifics.
Motivation:
The justifications for rejection are poor. One of the comments was: "The sentence should be changed to: "Quantifying pain pressure threshold provides the clinician…" that is not a problem that justifies the rejection of a paper.
Motivation:
The process was extremely slow, especially after I received the conditional acceptance. It took 10 months (!) from conditional acceptance to online publication. I would definitely not recommend any junior scholar to publish with JPR at the moment. In total, it took 16 months from the first submission to publication. Any inquiries with the editorial team were ignored by the administrative staff, no replies to emails at all.
Motivation:
I deeply suspect the editor-in-chief has a group of deeply connected people holding academic positions in India, and screens with bias.
Motivation:
It is the worst experience we have recently had with one of our submissions, even though our manuscript has been finally accepted for publication. To mention just a few problems: incompetent handling editor that was later replaced, unresponsive journal staff, delayed review, delayed proofs, delayed online publication… I personally do not think I would ever submit another manuscript to Frontiers in Microbiology or recommend this journal to any of my colleagues.
Motivation:
I waited for more than three months and still indicate editor invited. Horrible experience. Do not recommend for any one to consider this journal.