Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We got 2 reviews with only minor amendments. However before sending for review and after it, the editorial decisions took long time. Overall process was however quick.
Motivation:
Before submitting to this journal I emailed the editor as I was not sure if my work was within the scope. I received a reply on the same day inviting me to submit. This very speedy and professional response was repeated with all communications with the managing editor and editor in chief. I was also given very good advice on how to best improve a table which would appear in the main text and allowed to submit associated files both as supplementary data on the journal webpage as well as in Dryad (paid for by Journal of Heredity). Both reviewers were extremely speedy and gave good critiques in a friendly and professional manner. Overall the personal attention to detail and swift clear communication style of the editors is best I have ever experienced.
Motivation:
Until the date that I withdrew (6 months later) the online status showed 'awaiting reviewer selection'. Because of this I have emailed the administrator since July. When they bothered to send a tardy reply, it was a stock emails. In July I received "I confirm that your paper's status is still under review. Please note that we are doing our best to communicate the decision to you in a timely manner, however, the reviewers' availability might really affect the actual time lag". After no less than 5 more emails in the ensuing 5 months, the last email (which had to be sent twice before receiving a response) requesting I be informed if any reviews had come in so that I could make an informed decision about whether to withdraw the paper given that the previous journal sat on my paper for 47 weeks before I finally withdrew it. Only then did they decide to ACTUALLY check the status and wrote the following: "Upon checking the status of your paper, I have seen that some of the reviewers failed to respond with the invitations sent to them, while some have declined to review your paper. Therefore, the Editor invite another set of reviewers and waiting for their response to review the paper or not". After realising that it is the official journal of IOM (International Organization for Migration), I am doubly relieved that I've withdrawn it.
This paper has been on hold for 18 months only to have to commence the review process from scratch, yet again.
This paper has been on hold for 18 months only to have to commence the review process from scratch, yet again.
Motivation:
I found 3 weeks quite a long time to wait just to find out whether the paper would be reviewed or not. However, I was encouraged to transfer my paper to a different Nature brand journal, and the transfer process was extremely easy and convenient.
Motivation:
Three reviewers gave us helpful comments. Though some of them were reasons for rejections, the decision was very transparent.
Motivation:
Very quick internal review by one of the editors, who gave us clear understandable reason to not proceed. Unfortunate but satisfied.
Motivation:
The overall handling of manuscript was good, however I didn't like the manuscript tracking in nature communication witch offers much less information about manuscript status then is common in other journals.
Motivation:
Reviews issued by not expert referees.
Motivation:
Complaining about ms being a case study of single species.
Motivation:
Complaining about ms being a case study of single species
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent out for review very quickly. Final decision by the editor took rather long in comparison once the reviews were in.
Motivation:
The editor should have sent out the paper for review as a similar paper had been published in PNAS last year and we had much better results than the method.
Motivation:
I have nothing bad to say about this journal in my experience. This is the most professional contact I've ever had with a journal, and the fasted turnaround. The time from submission to (advanced online) publication was 4 months!
Motivation:
The response time was very good.
However, reviewers' comments were incorrect (either scientifically or in the context of the manuscript).
However, reviewers' comments were incorrect (either scientifically or in the context of the manuscript).
Motivation:
The review took very long time for first decision.
Motivation:
The editor wrote that the manuscriot was not appropiate for the journal readership even if I cited a lot of papers from the journal of the same topic.
Motivation:
There was a large number of received submissions
Motivation:
The reviewers do not give important guidelines, they just wrote that the novelty was not important.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was very slow.