All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: We had to wait six months to receive one (1) half-page review. Based on this, the editor rejected the manuscript, yet invited us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript.

The one review gave us almost nothing to work with—only very vague suggestions to turn our manuscript (that was a bit too long for the journal's word limit when we submitted it) into what the reviewer called a "full blown article." We made a few cosmetic changes to the manuscript (changed the title as requested by the reviewer, moved some text around), waited three weeks, and resubmitted the manuscript.

After two more months of waiting, we received a decision that the manuscript was now accepted. It had been sent to one external reviewer who determined that the revisions we had made were satisfactory.

Motivation: The process was well explained and transparent. The editors and/or editorial assistants replied quickly and kind to all requests.

Motivation: Worst journal experience I've had - I will never go back. It took nearly 3 months to get a final decision after we submitted our revised manuscript that was "accepted with minor revision". Most other journals would have turned it around in a few days. I had to repeatedly bug staff editors and eventually complained directly to the editor in chief, and after that things were sped up so that it "only" took an additional month. I threatened to withdraw the manuscript several times, and lost complete faith in the journal's ability to provide a decision. The journal talks about speedy publication, but the only thing that happened fast was me getting the bill - that was lightning fast.

Motivation: The first round of reviews was fast (4 weeks) and informative (2 reviews with relatively minor and technical issues). However, the revised manuscript was with the reviewers for 2 months without much update from the editor or the journal. I had to inquire 3 times for the updates.

Motivation: Reviewer suggested other experiments, however some of recommended tests do not make sense in this work.

Motivation: We received two reviewer reports after almost five months. One of the reviewers did not read the paper at all and criticized us not using some key resources, despite in reality those resources were over-used in the research. Other reviewer brought in their own methodological choice and criticised the research on having an institutional approach rather than a bottom-up approach. The editors were not responsive and we believe they handled the submission very poorly.

Motivation: The first round of review took a long time as the reviews sat with the editors for months before we received them. This is probably because of the length of the reviewers' comments, which was 8 pages. It was frustrating knowing the reviews were back and not hearing anything, however on the positive side the editorial staff were very helpful throughout the process.

Motivation: In the beginning, the paper took more than 6 weeks to be assigned to the editor. We emailed the editorial assistant and he was extremely helpful and attentive. Throughout the submission process, we emailed the editorial assistant several times with different inquiries about the paper and he was always fast in replying and helpful. In our view, the quality of the reviewer reports was not the best. However, their suggestions were quite clear and straightforward. Overall, they were able to understand the main argument of the paper which is not always guaranteed with peer-reviewers. All in all we are quite satisfied with the way in which our manuscript was handled by the EERJ.

Motivation: We submitted a relatively short and simple paper. The first round of review took 2 months. Both reviewers said to accept the paper with very minor changes. However, the editor did not agree and decided to reject the manuscript with invited resubmission. We made all suggested changes and resubmitted the manuscript. The 2nd round of review took 3 months. Both of the original reviewers said they were satisfied. However, a 3rd reviewer did not agree with the premise of the paper, although I do not believe he/she entirely understood the message. Thus the editor said he/she could not accept the manuscript given an additional reviewer gave a negative report. Thus the manuscript was refused with no possible resubmission. The process took 6 months, which was all time entirely wasted. Several emails to the editorial team during the review process went un-answered. Despite the fact that both original reviewers suggested to accept the paper the editor refused it. The most bothersome part is that we were given an invited resubmission, however the editor clearly did not like the paper and should have made this decision right away instead of wasting so much time.

Motivation: The review process was smooth. The payment process after acceptance was a bit cumbersome, as this is my first time to pay article processing charge (APC),

Motivation: It took the editor almost 3 weeks to make the decision to reject without review, which I found a bit long, but they apologized for the delay in the decision letter.

Motivation: I received first round of revision, including one reviewer and the AE, after ~10 months. The AE was quite positive. I revised and resubmitted. The sole reviewer that we got in the first round was fully satisfied but the AE had invited another reviewer who made some so-called major comments. Although these major comments were not rightful (some were even contradicted by the reviewer himself), the AE rejected the manuscript primarily because lack of sufficient novelty (which was indeed acknowledged by both reviewers). So, after ~15 months, I decided to submit this manuscript to another journal...

Motivation: Was told that the paper was not novel enough for the journal.