Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The journal is fast, and the editors are very responsible, however, the quality of reviewer's comments are low and biased. One reviewer clearly neither has a good understanding of the methodology nor carefully read the manuscript, given 1) give comments that are theoretically incorrect on the model; 2) point out a limitation that has already been properly dealt with as a major problem. In conclusion, as a top-tier journal, the experience is really disappointing.
Motivation:
Despite the seven-months elapse between our submission and BMC´s preliminary decision, we were pleased to receive reviewers´ reports as two out of three reviewers only had minor revisions. Furthermore, we were noticed that “BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth” anticipated to publish a revised version of our article if we could meet the reviewers´ points. We submitted a revised version of our article one month after receiving the review and the revision was based upon the reviewers´ comments. From August 2017 to November 2017, we emailed and called the editorial office of BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth many times in an attempt to get in touch with the editor-in-chief, but with no luck. In November 2017 we chose to withdraw our manuscript. We have felt obligated to state our opinion on BMC´s reviewing process at Scirev owing to all the respondents who have spent time on our questionnaire and provided data for our article.
Motivation:
Quick decision.
Motivation:
Took quite a long time for the editor to announce the decision after the system showed that the reviewers have finished their work. Reviewers' comments are useful.
Motivation:
Communication from the editor was timely and clear.
Comments from reviewers were not always on point, perhaps reflecting the broad interdisciplinary nature of the journal.
Most comments from reviewers were helpful in improving the manuscript.
Comments from reviewers were not always on point, perhaps reflecting the broad interdisciplinary nature of the journal.
Most comments from reviewers were helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
One of the review reports was very good and helped very much with the manuscript, besides the review round was very short.
Motivation:
It is of importance to check some physical properties of any natural plats to be used as inhibitors in corrosion study.
Motivation:
After the 1st round of revisions, same reviewers wouldn't accept to continue, so they sent our paper to 2 different reviewers and in the end they rejected.
Motivation:
Rejection due to the reason of not finding reviewers after 23 weeks means how serious they have been working.
I am sorry to hear these from a reputable journal in the field.
I am sorry to hear these from a reputable journal in the field.
11.1 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Our manuscript had several errors or shortcomings that had to be removed, there is no doubt about it. However, nor did I or my co-authors were satisfied with the manners of the handling editor and some reviewers in this case. We later sent a manuscript into another journal where it was finally published.
Motivation:
The review process started 12 days after I submited.
Motivation:
The Plos ONE review process has been the worst review process of any journal I've publish in to date. The manuscript was submitted in August, after queries, the journal staff assured that the manuscript was going out for peer review, then after a month and a half, the manuscript was rejected within a day of being viewed by a subject editor. The reasons for rejection were demonstrably false statements about the manuscript. An appeal was submitted and accepted, and the manuscript was resubmitted November 21, 2017. Now it is February 13, 2018, and "Editor Invited" has been the status for over two months.
Motivation:
I would suggest the the journals be required to inform authors when there is a change in the administrative system as that usually indicates there will be a delay
Motivation:
My manuscript was reviewed with great care, the reviewers' comments helped to sharpen my messages and absolutely improved it's quality. Correspondence with the journal was easy, very accessible.
Motivation:
Although it took a bit longer to receive reviews back than I hoped the comments were generally helpful and improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was overall very good. Reviewers' comments were very insightful and helped to significantly improve the final version of the article. However, I received the reviews only after more than 4 months.
Motivation:
In the cover letter we suggested a number of possible editors listed on the website, but the manuscript was sent to someone outside of our field of study (and not on our list in the cover letter). Given the importance of the manuscript and the scientific discovery we thought it would still be evaluated as an important paper, even by a scientist who is not an expert in this field of science. We checked the daily the submission system online, and saw that the manuscript bounced between two different editors outside of our field of study over the 4-weeks it was evaluated. From the rejection email we received it was clear that the editor had not added any comments, and there was no reason given for the rejection (Given the statements made in the form email it was clear it had not been written by a human). It took 4 weeks to receive the form rejection letter from the journal! We will resubmit the manuscript elsewhere given how important this discovery is. Hope this helps fellow scientists looking to submit to Science.
Motivation:
My manuscript used a qualitative methodology that, while well tested and reported on in previous literature, is not well understood outside of experts in the field. Although some qualitative research has been accepted to this journal it was clear that the reviewers were not well versed in qualitative research. Some comments by the reviewers were clearly hastily written--for example one reviewer objected to my using names for fear of disclosing PHI while the manuscript clearly stated pseudonyms were given.
Despite all of this I was impressed with how quickly the editor sent the paper out for review. Had this been a quantitative study it may have received fairer reviews. I will consider submitting to this journal in the future.
Despite all of this I was impressed with how quickly the editor sent the paper out for review. Had this been a quantitative study it may have received fairer reviews. I will consider submitting to this journal in the future.
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected