Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
69.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
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?
13.3 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
13.1 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
3.4 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
13.0 weeks
41.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
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.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The paper was rejected by another journal, with a long list of potential edits and inquiries. I responded in details to this in the transferred version of the manuscript before submitting it to E&E.
23.6 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: With the refusal I received feedback both form a reviewer and from an editor, mostly helpful.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The process for submission was smooth, and early communication with journal assistants was helpful. The eventual reviews spanned a range from accept to revise to reject. The final decision made was rejection, but the reject opinion showed signs of careless reading the submission (in particular, recommending the inclusion of scholarship already cited at multiple points in the submission). This was pointed out to the Editors following the reject decision, in an email that also thanked other reviewers for their careful and constructive feedback. There was no reply from the Editors.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Rejected
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.
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
3.0 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
10.4 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
6.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
32.1 weeks
53.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Drawn back
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.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Quick decision.
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
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.
18.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
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.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
Motivation: One of the review reports was very good and helped very much with the manuscript, besides the review round was very short.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: It is of importance to check some physical properties of any natural plats to be used as inhibitors in corrosion study.
36.6 weeks
36.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
0
Rejected
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.
25.3 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
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.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
6.0 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
11.1 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
10.0 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
3
Drawn back
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.
7.0 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process started 12 days after I submited.
14.3 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
39 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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.
5.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted