Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My paper was transferred to "Journal of Physical Chemistry C" from "ACS Energy Letters" following the advice of the editor of "ACS Energy Letters".
Then after waiting for nearly 2 months, I received just some general reviewer comments (6 lines of text recommending rejection - not original enough was the only argument) and from just 1 reviewer. This reviewer job could have been done in just 2 hours but it took nearly 2 months!
I will never again submit to this journal. It shows no respect for the authors.
Then after waiting for nearly 2 months, I received just some general reviewer comments (6 lines of text recommending rejection - not original enough was the only argument) and from just 1 reviewer. This reviewer job could have been done in just 2 hours but it took nearly 2 months!
I will never again submit to this journal. It shows no respect for the authors.
Motivation:
I have submitted two manuscripts to this Journal and they sent back to me without external review. I have submitted both the manuscripts to other Journals without any modification and there they out for external review.
Motivation:
The funny part is that me and one of my co-authors received an invitation to review the article! We did not accept it and mentioned it to the editor in chief without any answer from his part. However, the reviewers' remarks were constructive and important to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The handling time was way to long. After the initial submission our manuscript was actually rejected and we were encouraged to resubmit. However, for the resubmission we just included four more sentences in the manuscript and it felt indeed more like a minor revision. I do think that the reason to reject our manuscript after the first review round was simply to reduce the official total handling time of our manuscript. Now the date of the first revision counts as date of submission and thus the almost 9 weeks of the first review round are just hidden for statistics.
In addition, the reviewer comments were not very helpful and finally the published article is almost the same (except for the four added sentences) as the initially submitted manuscript - just that it took them almost 4 months.
In addition, the reviewer comments were not very helpful and finally the published article is almost the same (except for the four added sentences) as the initially submitted manuscript - just that it took them almost 4 months.
Motivation:
It just takes too long.
Motivation:
second round rejection without much of a reason given; quick handling, but one out of the three reviews in the first round was so poor that the editors should have noticed.
Motivation:
The reviews were very constructive and allowed me to improve my manuscript.
Motivation:
The quality of the review was good. Unfortunately, it took nearly three months for the reviewer to check our revisions. I emailed the editor twice about the delay, and both times the editor replied swiftly, stating that the reviewer had been reminded. After the second reminder to the reviewer, the decision was received within two days.
Motivation:
This was an overall very positive and encouraging publishing experience for our work to be accepted immediately without peer review by the Chief Editor who is a well-known figure for his high-quality, objective and meticulous reviews and feedback.
Motivation:
Even though one of the reviewers was satisfied the article was rejected on the basis of a luke warm second referee. The second referee brought up a new point - completely misunderstanding the article. The report was very poorly written and showed ZERO competence in the field. Was likely a graduate student. Very disappointing - especially after having done a lot of work on the article to take into account the referee's previous concerns.
Motivation:
I was very happy with the prompt response, which allowed us to move on to other journals.
Motivation:
Relatively fast, but relatively bad reviews.
Motivation:
Sorry, but here was no checkbox for the possibility that the editor did never answer after two revisions (I put there the date when the paper was withdrawn). I should explain - the first reviewer was constructive, we followed his/her suggestions, the paper improved, he/she did not have further comments; the second reviewer had mostly comments that we could not accept, he was not satisfied with our explanations. Probably the Editor could not decide and he never informed us. After 27.6 weeks and four unanswered e-mails to the Editorial Office we withdrew the paper.
Motivation:
Normal review, but with relatively minor revisions particularly the second review process was painfully slow.
Motivation:
The editorial board was promptly responsive to inquiries about the status of the paper. They handled it professionally, and paid attention to details. Though the initial review took a long time, it was thorough and the editor was unbiased. They also helped with the media coverage to some extent. The typesetting and formatting assistance offered by the journal is helpful. The article processing charge is not low, but it is not as high as comparable journals. Other than the long first round of review time, all the other aspects were positive about my experience with the journal.
Motivation:
I found the online submission portal to be quite easy from a user perspective. Reviewer comments were constructive and some of the editorial board comments were too. We found the whole process was pretty clear- however the quality control steps took a very long time to complete.
Motivation:
The review process was very quick.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.