Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor was very responsive and constructive throughout the evaluation process. The journal has an online first publishing system, which is interesting since the print version might take a bit longer.
Motivation:
The initial review procedure took more than a year and the evaluation of our resubmission also took fairly long, taking into account that the paper was not sent back to the evaluators. The evaluations as such were interesting, though the fact that the paper we submitted was not about English did seem to bring about some issues for one of the reviewers. After the final acceptance, the paper was quickly available online.
Motivation:
They were nice enough to inform after a week under editorial assessment that there is a delay from their side and would get back to us soon. They commented, "Although the work is of interest, we are not convinced that the findings presented have the potential significance that we require for publication in eLife. We think your findings fall short of proving the hypothesis".
Since the process was quick, we didn`t lose much time!
Since the process was quick, we didn`t lose much time!
Motivation:
PNAS is particular about the word limit, so thats to be kept in mind for initial submissions too. Since the review process is three-tier, we were happy that the editorial board and editorial review was completed in two days. However we were not satisfied with the comments of the reviewers. One of them gave very general comments and didn`t seem to be critical about the work. In the last, just said, "Although the subject is of fundamental interest, in the present form, this manuscript is written for a very specialized audience. "
The second reviewer somehow didn`t seem to understand our work, and questioned the very basis of our main study. Though he provided one interesting suggestion (which we also pursued later on), overall, we seem to have been unfortunate that our paper was reviewed by him!
The second reviewer somehow didn`t seem to understand our work, and questioned the very basis of our main study. Though he provided one interesting suggestion (which we also pursued later on), overall, we seem to have been unfortunate that our paper was reviewed by him!
Motivation:
Stay away from this journal. Took more than a year for a desk rejection and I am pretty sure that's how long it took to read the abstract. I actually had forgotten even submitting the manuscript to the journal and had moved on to other projects until I got an email a year later.
Motivation:
After submission, we received several automatic emails informing that the paper was sent to peer review / that all requested reviews were received etc. It was very nice to get these emails and be able to follow the evolution of the manuscript. When we felt that too much time passed without receiving any news, we emailed the editor and he was prompt in answering us. Overall this was a smooth and satisfying submission process.
Motivation:
I had the chance to make a few modifications as suggested by the editor before the manuscript was sent out to reviewers.
After rejection, the editor sugggested to transfer my manuscript to a more suited journal. I was pleased with this decision
After rejection, the editor sugggested to transfer my manuscript to a more suited journal. I was pleased with this decision
Motivation:
We have been happy with the reviewers comments, which was not only quick but also extremely relevant. It seemed that all 3 reviewers had knowledge on the experimental aspect and data analysis work too. The editorial decision was prompt and efficient. We have also been satisfied with the production and proofreading team. Our paper was online in three weeks after acceptance. Apart from the HEAVY open access fee that is charged, our overall experience with NAR has been positive and we are happy to have our paper published in such a reputed journal.
Motivation:
It was out of scope.
Motivation:
Very nice journal and communication with associate editors and publishing editors. Fast reliable and professional journal
Motivation:
The editor board member did provide some constructive comments and alternative journals for future submission.
Motivation:
it first took the journal 2 months to send out the manuskript. After review, it was immediately rejected, although the paper is a direct replication of another already published paper.
Motivation:
Editor handling our manuscript was very nice. He himself reviewed the manuscript and suggested some changes, which reviewers could not figure out.
Motivation:
Review process was relatively fast, very thorough and high quality comments were given by reviewers. After about 3 months we asked editor when can we expect the first decision, and editor responded very quickly and we got the decision in next week.
69.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
In September of 2017, I sent a follow-up email and was provided the following response: "My apologies for the delay—we’ve been dealing with editorial changes and that has delayed responses to some articles. We have one review and were waiting for another review to come in, but that hasn’t happened yet. I have been working through the back log and can commit to getting back to you in detail before. . ."
A month later, I received the following: "After careful review of the document, we feel that we cannot publish the article, in large part due to a mismatch in scope and focus stemming from the constrained data sample . . .". It took 70 weeks for that kind of a response. I admit the study focused on a very specific aspect of education, but there is no data available (or very, very limited) concerning the topic of study.
Seems to me, the journal could have notified me of the above at an earlier time. If the article was not publishable by the journal, why even send it out for review?
A month later, I received the following: "After careful review of the document, we feel that we cannot publish the article, in large part due to a mismatch in scope and focus stemming from the constrained data sample . . .". It took 70 weeks for that kind of a response. I admit the study focused on a very specific aspect of education, but there is no data available (or very, very limited) concerning the topic of study.
Seems to me, the journal could have notified me of the above at an earlier time. If the article was not publishable by the journal, why even send it out for review?
Motivation:
Both reviewers were thorough, critical, and fair in their comments. While they did not comment on any of the formal aspects of the papers, they were clearly very knowledgeable in the general area.
Motivation:
One reviewer mentioned only minor problems, one reviewer provided a detailed and solid criticism of a core aspect of the paper. Both reviewer were very charitable in their reading of the paper.
Motivation:
The decision to reject the manuscript related largely to the rather under-developed theoretical contribution within the field of the assessed content. The editor considered the empirical material as strong and to be commended. As there was little extension and development of existing sociological theories and concepts which is what would be needed to progress further through the WES review process, the editor recommended to submit the paper to a different journal.
Motivation:
The process was a bit slow, but the comments raised by the reviewers and editor were highly useful. In the first submission, it seems they were not understanding the aim of the paper correctly. Once we had the opportunity to resubmit after rewriting, they were very helpful and constructive, pointing out problems that the authors were unaware of, and suggesting improvements. I think the manuscript improved a lot thanks to this feedback. The reviewers were anonymous but clearly experts in the field.