Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
Motivation:
Pretty slow to reject without review.
Motivation:
No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.
Motivation:
I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
Motivation:
Review process a bit slow - this was a review article and since the review phase took so long we had to update the review with the new papers that had come out since then (quite a lot actually). Besides one of the reviewers was overzealous, picking on things that made no sense. The other two were quite fine. The editor is charming. Once the revised version was submitted the decision happened fat. Overall a nice experience.
Motivation:
After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Motivation:
The work focused on the use of a disease model to predict the public health benefit of a disease intervention. The reviewers, while knowledgeable about virology, *both* stated in their reviewers they had no background in mathematical modeling, and seemed focused on more 'within-host' aspects. Thus, the claim that the work was not "technically sound in method and analysis" was quite infuriating.
Motivation:
After acceptance on 17-11-2015, it took more than 15 (!) months to finally get the paper published on 20-02-2017. This was quite a frustrating experience.
Motivation:
Very professional approach by the editor and the reviewers.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was extremely different (both very positive, though): while one of them really understood the paper and made very useful suggestions, the other one made the impression that the reviewer was not familiar with some basic linguistic notions.
Motivation:
It was clear from the reviews that they were not competent enough in the specific topic.
Motivation:
I had the impression that all the reviewers and the editor took a lot of time to read the paper and make very constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
There was clear evidence that the editors had read the manuscript and appreciated it, but simply felt that the novelty and scope were not suitable for Neuron.
Motivation:
Too slow ending with a very short report by a solo reviewer or editorial member after 4 months
Motivation:
I was expecting a longer duration of getting the paper accepted since we reported a qualitative study. The editor was nice and provided constructive comments.
Motivation:
The review process was factual, thorough and speedy. I was highly satisfied with both communication with editor and commentaries addressed by reviewers.
Motivation:
Given both the contradictory conclusions provided by the reviewers and note of the Editor to try to shorten the manuscript for a completely new submission, I officially asked the Editorial Board to reconsider the decision on the manuscript. As the rewiever #2 considered the changes made in the resubmitted text as unsatisfactory, I provided an additional detailed explanation and justification of the whole manuscript and its rationale to the Editorial Board - including thorough justification of the only part that could not be fully satisfied to reviewer #2 (it concerned the shortening of the analysis section which would, however, in turn result to substandard analysis with oversimplified conclusions). However, the Chief Editor simply confirmed the previous rejection with an additional criticism to another issues not confronted in the previous steps of the review process.
Motivation:
I am a frequent submitter to WRR and always have a positive experience. In this case the reviews were a bit less rigorous than usual, but overall the process was easy, quick, and fair.
Motivation:
After my manuscript was sent to two reviewers (one with very positive comments and one more critical), the editor decided to reject the manuscript. Although some points raised by one of the reviewer and the handling editor were fair, I regret that there was no possibility to respond to these comments and resubmit a revised version... Otherwise, the delay of the review process was ok and the handling editor choice of reviewers was relevant (both reviewers signed their review, which is highly appreciable as an author).
Motivation:
The review process was very long and I think the second review process was not clearly justified, notably after taking into account previous reviewer comments during the first round. At the end it took more than a year, four reviews and a hesitating handling editor that did not want to take a clear decision, before my manuscript was finally accepted for publication. Such publication delays are not acceptable for a journal of this quality.