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
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.
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
Rejected
Motivation:
With the refusal I received feedback both form a reviewer and from an editor, mostly helpful.
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.
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.