Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Review process a little slow, but still ok, reviews also sincere and good quality. Problem was, after the revised acceptance by the editor, the paper was held back for 15 (!) months before final publication. Pre-print was available online already, but no Issue number etc., so no proper citation was possible.
Motivation:
It took 14 weeks to get a rejection, which is not as bad as some journals. However, it seems a bit lengthy given that the rejections were not extremely deep. The criticisms were not petty for the most part, but they had completely overridden the positive reviewer's feedback.
Motivation:
The quick turn around time, even though it was a rejection, was good.
Motivation:
I waited 10 months to get the reviewers' opinions which were very succint. There is apparently a problem with this journal. The associate editor I exchange with was not able to contact the Chief Editor to send him my manuscript. I finally (after nine months and half of waiting and multiple dunning emails to the associate editor) decide to contact the Chief Editor myself who gave me a really fast answer in three days. The final version of the article was published two months after that.
Motivation:
The whole process took more than I expected, starting with the overzealous quality check, which, in my case, asked me to explain details that were clearly already written in the manuscript, as per observed editorial policies. Apparently they will not consider this the submission date, but only when it got past this check stage. We had no detailed feedback from one reviewer and a sober review from the other reviewer, which helped to improve the text. After the simple requested changes were made, a long time elapsed before the acceptance letter was sent. Also of interest for researcher awaiting an editorial response, after the tracking system showed the "decision made" status, it took almost two weeks before the decision was revealed to the corresponding author.
Motivation:
Manuscript status was "Editor assigned" in the submission system for six months. I contacted the editorial office staff and editors several times, after which I was assured the editor would be reminded to expedite the process. However, I was never contacted (I would have been satisfied with being told they needed more time to find reviewers). Wasted so much time waiting for them, submit at your own risk!
Motivation:
In retrospect the process was relatively painless but it felt very long during the review. Two weeks after the submission the manuscript was sent to review. Judging from the 'last activity date' two reviews were back within about 2 weeks but we were left waiting for 6 weeks. Upon our inquiry the editor decided to go with the reviews at hand -- then the manuscript remained "under evaluation" for a month before the decision. The reviews were of high quality, but not particularly different from the kinds we get for the society-level journals. Taking two weeks to revise, we resubmitted, and the manuscript was accepted in 10 days. Overall it took 15.5 weeks to get accepted after the initial submission. I believe this was a relatively uncontroversial case and it would have been accepted in less than two months at a society-level journal in our field, but the outcome was worth the wait.
Motivation:
Despite the review process was long, the editors were very helpful and responsive.
Motivation:
Very fast and efficient website. I really appreciate that the response was fast, and I didn't need to do massive formatting work on the manuscript. I only wished that the paper was reviewed before being declined.
Motivation:
The process was very smooth. Although one review was very negative and of low quality (in the authors' opinion), the associate editor sided with the other review that was much more positive. The manuscript was sent to review and decisions were taken in a timely manner.
Motivation:
This was for a special issue, and the scope they mentioned in the rejection mail was quite a bit different from the original call.
Motivation:
The review process wasn't very fast, but the reviews ultimately did help me improve my paper a great deal.
Motivation:
The quality of reviews and editorial comments were high and worth the relatively long review period. The quality of production editing, however, was not up to standard and required extra effort (i.e., several iterations and repeated comments).
Motivation:
- The editorial process takes FOREVER. We send several mails to the editor to check or to get updates, but none of these e-mails were answered.
- The review are very poor. The reviewers did not have bad intentions, but clearly, it was not their field of expertise.
+ I have the feeling that Cultural Sociology accepts just about anything. While the process is incredibly long, and you get a lot of request to revise (which do not improve the article), your article will get published in the end. I will only consider Cultural Sociology again if I have an article which does not get accepted anywhere else.
- The review are very poor. The reviewers did not have bad intentions, but clearly, it was not their field of expertise.
+ I have the feeling that Cultural Sociology accepts just about anything. While the process is incredibly long, and you get a lot of request to revise (which do not improve the article), your article will get published in the end. I will only consider Cultural Sociology again if I have an article which does not get accepted anywhere else.
Motivation:
The review process was generally good. A bit quicker would have been good, but all communication with the editorial support was excellent. In addition one of the reviewer comments were good, but obviously a bit biased in that they clearly wanted several of their own papers cited.
Motivation:
The time taken to arrive at a rejection by the editor was inappropriately long (2 weeks).
Motivation:
Received a desk-reject within two weeks without a clear reason stated.
Motivation:
I got a very positive and very negative review in the first round. The editor specified what comments I had to take seriously, taking both the negative and positive review into account. This was very helpful.
Motivation:
my very this paper after publication in other journal got cited by a paper of this journal within a month & they told me NOT FIT !!!!
Motivation:
Extremely long handling time and very poor communication. The editor never replied to my enquiries which I found very unprofessional. The journal manager replied to my enquiries but could not give detailed information about the delay. Overall a very bad experience although I have to admit that the final review reports are of high quality.
Motivation:
Smooth and speedy process, and a responsive editor. I will certainly submit to Nature Comm again
Motivation:
apart from work, writing flow should be good
Motivation:
We had to wait six months to receive one (1) half-page review. Based on this, the editor rejected the manuscript, yet invited us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript.
The one review gave us almost nothing to work with—only very vague suggestions to turn our manuscript (that was a bit too long for the journal's word limit when we submitted it) into what the reviewer called a "full blown article." We made a few cosmetic changes to the manuscript (changed the title as requested by the reviewer, moved some text around), waited three weeks, and resubmitted the manuscript.
After two more months of waiting, we received a decision that the manuscript was now accepted. It had been sent to one external reviewer who determined that the revisions we had made were satisfactory.
The one review gave us almost nothing to work with—only very vague suggestions to turn our manuscript (that was a bit too long for the journal's word limit when we submitted it) into what the reviewer called a "full blown article." We made a few cosmetic changes to the manuscript (changed the title as requested by the reviewer, moved some text around), waited three weeks, and resubmitted the manuscript.
After two more months of waiting, we received a decision that the manuscript was now accepted. It had been sent to one external reviewer who determined that the revisions we had made were satisfactory.
Motivation:
Beware of this journal. After waiting for a long time to get our manuscript reviewed, the editor decided to reject our manuscript because of the large number of submissions the journal receives and the size of the tasks that the suggested revisions would entail. Both reviewers were fairly positive about our manuscript, but raised a few concerns. Non of the concerns were really fundamental or insurmountable. What happened to major revision? After such a long waiting time to get referee reports, the least we deserve is a decent chance to defend our hard work and revise the paper, no?