Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
First, I would like to apologize to readers for my imperfect English.
The review process was very disappointing due to reviewers' comments, who rejected the paper with a very vague justification of 'not beeing geographic enough'; event. 'not fitting the journal of Applied Geography'. In fact, the paper aimed at multilevel analysis of factors related to adolescent substance use with a specific focus on both international levels and country-specific millieu (Czechia). Thus, I believe the paper employed geographic aspects as an explicit subject. At the same time, the paper tried to make some recommendations for drug policy; thus, the paper was 'applied' as well.
In the paper, a detailed discussion on several issues directly related to the research subject were provided (ca. 20 pages long manuscript). However, the 2 reviewers who advised rejection of the paper in the first round provided very brief comments of ca. 5-6 sentences. The commentaries did not pointed to any issues related to the text itself; therefore, the reviewers' professional background related to the manuscript subject made questionable impression. For completeness I also note that the commentary from the 3rd reviewer was just the opposite to the previous two reviewers. The rewiever 3 simply adviced for a direct acceptance of the paper with no other changes (the review comment of a total of 3 sentences).
The review process was very disappointing due to reviewers' comments, who rejected the paper with a very vague justification of 'not beeing geographic enough'; event. 'not fitting the journal of Applied Geography'. In fact, the paper aimed at multilevel analysis of factors related to adolescent substance use with a specific focus on both international levels and country-specific millieu (Czechia). Thus, I believe the paper employed geographic aspects as an explicit subject. At the same time, the paper tried to make some recommendations for drug policy; thus, the paper was 'applied' as well.
In the paper, a detailed discussion on several issues directly related to the research subject were provided (ca. 20 pages long manuscript). However, the 2 reviewers who advised rejection of the paper in the first round provided very brief comments of ca. 5-6 sentences. The commentaries did not pointed to any issues related to the text itself; therefore, the reviewers' professional background related to the manuscript subject made questionable impression. For completeness I also note that the commentary from the 3rd reviewer was just the opposite to the previous two reviewers. The rewiever 3 simply adviced for a direct acceptance of the paper with no other changes (the review comment of a total of 3 sentences).
Motivation:
The handling process was smooth. There was a conflict between our opinion and reviewers opinion. So editor send our manuscript to the another reviewer. And finally our manuscript have been accepted. I recommend this journal
Motivation:
After 2 weeks management team told that "due to the high inflow of papers we currently have, the paper is currently in the pipeline with the assignment team and it will be assigned to the editor shortly"
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
Motivation:
The reviewer made excellent constructive comments on the paper. The changes were substantial but extremely helpful. S/He also directed me to several relevant literature in the field that improved the paper a lot.
Motivation:
The only critique I have is that the first review took so long. The comments and advice of the reviewers as well as of the managing editor/editor-in-chief were all very helpful.
Motivation:
The overall review process for BASP was excellent. My submission was acknowledged right away and I was informed that the review process had begun. The review process itself was quick and the comments I received evidenced a careful critique by two reviewers with expert knowledge of the subject area. Their comments, plus a few from one of the editors, led to a significantly better resubmission that was ultimately accepted.
Motivation:
Excellent handling of editor; editor gave space to reviewers but stepped in when needed.
Motivation:
Overall, the editor handled the manuscript very well. But in the first round review, i thought that the duration of peer-review was too long. Unfortunately, in the second round of peer-review, manuscript was sent out to different reviewers over the original reviewers, so new additional issues kept arise in every round. It led to the author's effort to revise the manuscript inefficient in term if time. But it is not a big deal, anything in the process sometimes do not move in the editor's favour. In generall, it is good.
Motivation:
The editor failed to notice scientific and technical errors in the comments by one of the reviewers. His decision was based on this incorrect information. Clearly, the reviewer was unaware of the field. The speed of reviews was much better than I had expected.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected after 3 hours of submission. They even didn't look at the manuscript. But the good this is they didn't waste our time
Motivation:
Reviewer suggested not to publish our manuscript in the journal. He gave some fair comment. Overall good experience
Motivation:
They responded remarkably quick, and the feedback was very helpful both at the level of detail and that of the argument.
Motivation:
The administrational handling was excellent. Unfortunately, the peer review comments were not quite elaborated.
Motivation:
The submission itself was easy and the review process overall quite fast and painless.
Motivation:
The review process was really fast and reviewer´s comments really helped to further improve the manuscript. Processing after second resubmission and proof-reading was within 11 hours, so increadible fast.
Motivation:
very rapid and helful process
Motivation:
On the positive side, the editorial manager system of the journal is excellent. However, if some of the reviewers are either not familiar with the literature on the given topic or they are busy promoting their own related work, the chances of a real scientific discussion are severely limited.
Motivation:
The first review round took a long time. Although the issue was not with the journal - they had to change the reviewer, proactive informing would have been nice.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was submitted in 2016, but we did not receive any review until 2018. Every 3-4 months we wrote emails, but the manager claimed he could not recruit reviewers. We ourselves provided 10 reviewer candidacies. In 2018 we received one review, which claimed that our manuscript "was very interesting. The content within the paper was well developed and the research was completed thoroughly. From a technical aspect, the paper was done well. However, the paper faced many grammatical errors including the misuse of commas". In the same email our manuscript was rejected without giving us a chance to correct the grammar. We tried to appeal to the Principal Editor, but received just a formal reply. Next month we submitted our manuscript to Fuel Processing Technology. It was reviewed and published in less than 2 months
Motivation:
The Editor wrote: "I have read through the manuscript, and while it appears to be a careful study, it does not appear to meet the aims and scope of TALANTA. Talanta publishes original articles dealing with significant advances in analytical methodology."
Motivation:
After submission, we received about 30 comments from three reviewers. Nearly all of them were relevant, only one was clearly contradictory. After we revised the manuscript, in the second round of review we got comments mostly regarding English. We did not use any professional editing service, although none of us are native English speakers. The journal did not edit our manuscript before publishing.
Motivation:
the usual comment, does not falls under the scope
Motivation:
This is the worst journal you will ever see. after keeping my paper for 5 months almost, the reviewer comment was " I suggest to reject the manuscript".
Motivation:
Strange, possibly biased and short 1/3 page reviews
Motivation:
Editor offered very lengthy and explanatory explanation of the shortcomings of the article. We addressed them and the article was published on a same-IF journal.
Motivation:
Editor rejected manuscript suggesting existing evidence was provided elsewhere. When asked to suggest the articles that provided that evidence the editor couldn't mention any. Overall, poor editing work.