Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They provided fair rejection background within a short time.
Motivation:
Immediate reject after 2h. Editor just wrote a single line of 6 words: "fits better in an IT journal". Paper clearly fit with an ongoing discussion in the journal on the same topic, so that the fast and not well argued rejection came very surprising. Everything happened on a Friday afternoon/night, maybe that played a role...
Motivation:
Tribology International has drastically improved their handling of manuscripts since I last submitted a manuscript. Excellent work!
Motivation:
This was the fastest review process that I ever experienced. The presubmission enquiry is very helpful.
Motivation:
Timely, professional review process. Good comments from reviewers that improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
This was a very slow and challenging process. Our original reviews were not well thought out, but after we responded to them the editor accepted the paper. But then the journal reversed that decision and sent us four additional reviews on top of the additional 3 to respond to. Then once we addressed all of those it took another 6 months for them to assign us a new editor and make a decision. It seems that they are struggling to find enough editors to handle all of the submissions they are receiving. While the staff at the journal were pleasant and did their best, I will not be submitting to PLOS ONE again unless I hear they've gotten this issue under control.
Motivation:
This was the best review experience I've had so far. After sending a presubmission inquiry, we got a positive response within a couple of hours. After submitting the manuscript, the review process was exceptionally fast (4 reviewer reports within less than 4 weeks). Based on the reviewer's comments, we could see that they were clearly experts in the field, and even though some of their comments were difficult to address, they were very helpful to considerably improve the quality of the manuscript. Moreover, whenever we had a question to the editorial office, they always responded within just a few hours. All in all, we were very impressed by the quality of the review reports and how the editor & editorial office handled our manuscript throughout all stages of the review process.
Motivation:
I submitted in July. After months of being "under review", and no response to any emails, we received rejection on new year's eve.
From a different editor.
Who couldn't spell the name of their own journal.
Who quoted our own conclusions as a reason for rejection.
In an email with more spelling and grammar mistakes than there were lines in the email.
Finally, the rejection was stated as being due to the paper being unsuited for being sent to review. After 5 months under review!
We received no reply, or reviewer's reports, despite contacting the journal for an appeal.
From a different editor.
Who couldn't spell the name of their own journal.
Who quoted our own conclusions as a reason for rejection.
In an email with more spelling and grammar mistakes than there were lines in the email.
Finally, the rejection was stated as being due to the paper being unsuited for being sent to review. After 5 months under review!
We received no reply, or reviewer's reports, despite contacting the journal for an appeal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field who gave constructive comments.
Motivation:
We send a detailed presubmission enquiry about a Registered Report and received an invitation to submit. When we submitted the 'Stage 1' RR, we received a desk rejection four weeks later.
Motivation:
Very fluent process, high quality reviews, relatively fast
Motivation:
slow review, one reviewer argued for rejection, but two others more positive not taken into account
Motivation:
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. While we have no doubt that your findings will be of significant interest to fellow specialists, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the paper contains the sort of advance in our understanding of ... that would justify publication in Nature. We instead feel that the present paper would find a more appropriate outlet in another journal.
P.S. Although we are unable to offer to publish your paper in Nature, you may wish to consider Nature Communications as an outlet for your research (if so, please see the link below). Nature Communications is, however, editorially independent and therefore I can't guarantee that they would find your manuscript appropriate for their journal.
P.S. Although we are unable to offer to publish your paper in Nature, you may wish to consider Nature Communications as an outlet for your research (if so, please see the link below). Nature Communications is, however, editorially independent and therefore I can't guarantee that they would find your manuscript appropriate for their journal.
Motivation:
The whole review process took extremely long. The editor(s) did not react to our emails.
Motivation:
The waiting time for a first response was very long (from August, 2016 until January, 2017) over the expected/average 54 days showed on the journals page (http://www.springer.com/environment/monitoring+-+environmental+analysis/journal/10661). After resubmitting the paper, the final response also took a long time (February, 2017 until September, 2017), considering that just minor chances were made to the paper.
After acceptance, the publishing process was fast and well handled.
After acceptance, the publishing process was fast and well handled.
Motivation:
A message "Editor assignment pending" was seen in the editorial system during 270 days (almost 9 months). My 4 letters to the editors received no answer or automatic answer "Your paper is with the editor for his evaluation and the review process will be initiated soon". I just planned to withdraw the manuscript when at last I got the message "Under review" and after a month rejection.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial rejection, stated reason was that the findings were not "sufficiently striking".
Motivation:
The decision was well justified with a quick turnaround time and with wise advices.