Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I was very happy about the fast and professional review process. Especially the guidance of one of the two reviews really improved our manuscript.
Also, I like the easy way to achieve open access publishing for the papers (our university has a contract with the publisher, so we pay no fees for open access, but you can also publish open access without a fee when you are member of the Electrochemical Society).
Also, I like the easy way to achieve open access publishing for the papers (our university has a contract with the publisher, so we pay no fees for open access, but you can also publish open access without a fee when you are member of the Electrochemical Society).
Motivation:
The review process was handled very professionally. Good quality reviewers that helped improve the manuscript substantially.
Motivation:
Efficient and rather fast review process. One of the reviewer had problems with our methodology while the other reviewer was globally positive. This resulted in the rejection of our paper.
Motivation:
After a 12 week review, we received a single paragraph outlining a half-dozen shortcomings in our manuscript, none of which were supported with literature. This is concerning given statements surrounding the novelty of the work. Collogueges well versed in the topic had previously reviewed this manuscript and found it novel and engaging to read. Given the limited depth of the review, only a single review being reported with no recommendations for improvement, the process allowed provided little improvement potential. I have previously been very impressed with this journal and will submit here in the future, but will hope for a more thorough and timely review process.
Motivation:
The quality of the feedback given and the justification for not sending it out to reviewers were disappointing.
Motivation:
The editor felt that the work was not suitable for publication because it did not fit the journal's scope. The authors do not agree in general with the editor's decision and think that the topics perfectly matched the journal's guidelines. Works on similar topics, and published in the same journal in the past, were even previously identified by the authors which partially guided the decision for choosing this journal. The editor admitted he was not able to understand the topic of the paper which the authors found it also a surprising statement. We concluded that we just had 'bad luck' with the assigned editor. The communication at least was fast which is always a positive point.
Motivation:
Rapid rejection without review. No complaints here - we submitted the paper to another journal the following day.
Motivation:
Editor has refused the article without any good reason and I had the feeling that he does not even read the manuscript, given the automatic, vague and obtuse answer.
Motivation:
We failed to communicate our results well in this paper, and received rather confusing reports from the reviewers. That's not going to cut it with a journal like ESR.
Motivation:
The paper was quickly rejected because the editor felt that it was not a fundamental advance in our understanding. I got the option to submit to the sister journal of Nature Climate Change.
Motivation:
Other suitable journal was suggested. The suggested journal did not fit to the topic of our manuscript.
Motivation:
After 7.5 months, the editor only managed to obtain one external review. This one review was mildly negative; most comments were related to stylistic concerns or requests for clarification of some points. The reviewer
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
Motivation:
The editor declined without reasonable reason.
Motivation:
Although the decision was not what we wanted, the review process was quite high quality. The reviewers and AE were quite knowledgeable on the topic. Although we had a philosophical divergence with one of the reviewers, the AE supported us on that point and so did not let that be a deciding factor. The reviews were received in average time for journals in our field. Considering that the eventual decision was a rejection, I'm glad it did not drag for more than two rounds--the journal gave us a fair attempt to try to retell our story. Overall, I consider this a good-quality process for a rejection outcome.
Motivation:
Review processing time was average, but reviewers have raised issues that we can not solve right away.
Motivation:
After the first round of reviews (which we received end of February 2018), we addressed every point and updated the paper (March 2018). Reviews were helpful and made our paper better. However, after 2 months (end of May 2018), we were rejected.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
Motivation:
Even though it was rejected, we received excellent advice. We restructured the manuscript and performed new experiments before submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
Terrible journal - editors will keep saying they are interested in your manuscript but taking way too long to handle them, and request major edits. Too much effort for a 1.3 impact factor journal.
Motivation:
Manuscript has too many figures and tables was given as the main reason for rejection, which leads me to believe this journal is interested only in publishing abstract and vague articles with no focus on scientific detail or rigour. Which is not surprising, given they have had retract a large number of previous papers with erroneous results and data. Not a recommended journal.