Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Standard, nondescript answer.
Motivation:
If you are somehow important, come from a "name brand" school, or know the editor, I'd say go ahead and submit, regardless of the quality of your work.
Motivation:
The initial evaluation by the editors is very slow. They found 1 minute in over 2 weeks to make the decision. No useful comments, waste of time. The editors are all university professors, which differs from Nature publishing group. Initial I thought it means more professionals, but now I realized it means very slow because the professors are too busy. They don't have time to consider the manuscript seriously.
Motivation:
Two of the three reviews were very similar and certain passages were nearly copy-pasted from each other. After bringing this to the attention of the handling editor and the editor in chief, they responded by saying that the two reviewers couldn't have colluded on their reviews because they have never co-authored a paper together, without following up with them directly. The quality of the two reviews was also very low and it was obvious that they had not fully read the manuscript. The third reviewer who had clearly paid more attention to the manuscript had advocated for major revisions but the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
We submitted to this journal due to their quick review process and were extremely pleased with their fast handling of our manuscript. The initial handling by the editor was extremely efficient and the manuscript was sent for review within a week of submission. It took a total of 3 more weeks for the reviewer reports to be received which again was pretty quick as opposed to our earlier experiences.
While handling of the manuscript was definitely efficient we were disappointed with the quality of reviewer comments received. The reviewer comments indicated that several questions raised were already answered in the document/figures and others indicated conducting unnecessary experiments which could result in 4 different publications. Other queries pertaining to formatting the manuscript were well received by us. While the nature of the comments indicated that we could have communicated with the editorial office, clarified any misinterpretation of our manuscript and performed necessary experiments to strengthen our findings; we were advised against a re-submission due to the 'concerns raised by the reviewers'. The experience was definitely disheartening as we received no relevant scientific comments and got an indication that the manuscript had not bee reviewed thoroughly.
While handling of the manuscript was definitely efficient we were disappointed with the quality of reviewer comments received. The reviewer comments indicated that several questions raised were already answered in the document/figures and others indicated conducting unnecessary experiments which could result in 4 different publications. Other queries pertaining to formatting the manuscript were well received by us. While the nature of the comments indicated that we could have communicated with the editorial office, clarified any misinterpretation of our manuscript and performed necessary experiments to strengthen our findings; we were advised against a re-submission due to the 'concerns raised by the reviewers'. The experience was definitely disheartening as we received no relevant scientific comments and got an indication that the manuscript had not bee reviewed thoroughly.
Motivation:
My experience with this journal is exactly how I would expect a paper to be handled. The first decision was in a reasonable time, I got three quality reviews that improved the clarity of the manuscript, and the turn around to acceptance was also very quick.
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and the reviewers helped me improve the paper. However, I found one of the reviewers repeatedly requesting for additions to the reference list with each reference belonging to a single author. I believe the editor should check such reviewers and push back against this.
Motivation:
An international journal indexed in JCR as Q1 can't make a decision having only one review, especially when the report only provides one reason, does not indicate changes to perform and can be seen as subjective.
Motivation:
The whole review process took us more than one year, so the paper was published almost two years after the work was performed. Four rounds of revisions were performed with the following results: major changes, minor changes, major changes and acceptance. I can't find the logic when you apply minor changes suggested by reviewers and their next review suggests major changes. Additionally, there were contradictions between the reviewers that the editors did not solve.
Motivation:
We had five reviews that really improved our paper. One of the reviewers didn't agree with the rest, but the editors solved this issue and finally published the paper. Our only complaint was the excesive publication fee.
Motivation:
This time we only had two reviews and our paper was directly accepted. We miss the deepness of the reviews of other times in Sensors.
Motivation:
This time the reviews were both fast and rigorous.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous, but it took a very long time.
Motivation:
The submission was straightforward. GCB honoured their 60-day reviewer timeline and accepted the revised manuscript quickly. Additionally, the manuscript available through early view extremely quickly, which ultimately allowed it to be read and cited before it has officially come out.
Motivation:
The editorial decision to go against the decision of the initial reviewers 1 and 2 and seek out a fourth reviewer are very strange. The whole process lacked transparency. I am very disappointed in how the editor handled this process and am not likely to submit another paper here soon.
Motivation:
I found six weeks for a desk reject without any comment very long for a public health journal.
Motivation:
The process was extremely quick and efficient.
Motivation:
Editor took over six weeks to make editorial rejection. Too long.
Motivation:
An AE wrote a summary of the paper missing the main point and rejected it.
Motivation:
The first time the AE comlpetely missed the novelties.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
Motivation:
The editor rejected on the grounds the content was not suited for the jpurnal. I replied pointing out i had replicated a study published in two papers in that journal. She never replied.
Motivation:
Overall, pleased with the process. Submission was straightforward, editorial response was swift. Also provided a reasonable explanation for the editorial rejection.
Motivation:
The second round of reviews took three months, which really at this stage of manuscript handling was an unacceptable delay.
Motivation:
After three months, the ms had not yet left the editor for review. After several attempts to contact the journal, the publisher and editor-in-chief eventually got back to us, regretted the unacceptable handling so far, and promised that the ms should be reviewed shortly and handled rapidly. That did not happen. After another two months the editor was not near a decision, and only a single referee report had been produced (the standard time for a review assignment for MPE being, to my knowledge, two weeks). At that point, after growing dissatisfaction from us, the editor-in-chief stepped in and made an executive interim decision (rejection, resubmission considered) based on a single referee report (regrettably of rather low quality). After resubmission, however, the ms was handled by the original editor, and accepted without further review after only two and a half weeks.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 574.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I had to withdraw my submitted paper because it was not revised 19 months after submission.