Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We received two reviews: The first one did not provide any information other than the fact that the reviewer advocates of a different research tradition to the approach used in the paper. Weirdly the second reviewer had no idea about the methodological paradigm and method adopted in the study. - The journal claims to be open to various methodological and theoretical approaches. If this is the case, they need to assign manuscripts to competent reviewers. This review process was a waste of time for everyone involved.
Motivation:
The decision of lack of fit (a single phrase) took so long (7.6 weeks).
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected by the editor because of the low level of conceptual advance. Luckily, the editor's decision was quick, and we could transfer our manuscript to another journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled in an unprofessional, biased way from the part of the Editorial board. There were 2 reviews, the first explicitly recommending publication and praising the quality of the work, the second being very critique but without explicitly suggesting rejection in the comments. Without going into the details, the fact is that the major critique of the 2nd reviewer was a falsified claim of not comparing against recent methods, while the submitted article indeed contained a comparison against the #1 performing method in the domain, published in just the previous year. It was probably due to neglect from the reviewer that did not actually read through the article and the final responsibility of the editorial boards that just did not care.
Motivation:
Both the review process and article processing were quite fast, as promoted by the journal. Despite the fast initial review time, one of the review reports was useful and gave us concrete ideas how to improve the manuscript, while the other was slightly haphazard. With the article processing fee lowered to a much more attractive $750 for 2018, I would definitely consider sending and particularly transferring papers to ACS Omega also in the future.
Motivation:
Comments on our manuscript were very helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was very long, we waited about 6 months to hear any thing about our manuscript from the editor, after that, we emailed the editor to inform us about it. He did not response but few days later we received the review reports.
Motivation:
Very long first review round, especially for a minor revision.
Motivation:
Went through two revisions, but the reviewers were quite helpful to improve the manuscript, with the editor helping navigate the comments (especially where I did not agree with the reviewers).
Motivation:
Review process was really long (8 to 10 weaks in average), and there was no such information on the journal website - it was given after submission. Paper was rejected mainly due to theoretical issues. Some of the comments were very useful and helpful. Nevertheless, two of three reviewers made obvious errors, which in our opinion could be easily avoided during careful reading of the manuscript.
Motivation:
I found the majority of the reviewer's comments constructive and relevant. All authors found the manuscript improved after the peer-review proces. The time from submission to assignment of reviewer was acceptable and the time from submission of revised manuscrip to acceptance was swift.
Motivation:
The review process was good. The reviewers were encouraging and the review time wasnt too much!
Motivation:
The whole process was drawn out with many delays. We didn't receive out initial reviewer's reports until 11 weeks after submitting as they had trouble finding the right expert to review the paper. We had to contact the editor on multiple occasions for updates on the manuscripts progress.
Motivation:
Although the first review did take some time, the comments from reviewers were good and both understand the paper and the scope of the work. After our answers, both were very happy about the changes
Motivation:
Reviewers suggestions were improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Nothing positive.
1. Long process (8 months in total).
2. Limited communication from journal about status or any issues connected with submission.
3. Resubmission was with BMC for 5 months before final decision, and this appears only to have happened because I had to send 3 e-mails to find out what was happening.
4. The reason for final rejection was debatable (paper did not conform to requirements) and in stark contradiction to the editorial office's previous actions (sent out twice for peer review; resubmission requested). If the paper did not conform, why was this not made clear at the start?
5. The apology for this whole process taking 8 months was scant and formulaic.
1. Long process (8 months in total).
2. Limited communication from journal about status or any issues connected with submission.
3. Resubmission was with BMC for 5 months before final decision, and this appears only to have happened because I had to send 3 e-mails to find out what was happening.
4. The reason for final rejection was debatable (paper did not conform to requirements) and in stark contradiction to the editorial office's previous actions (sent out twice for peer review; resubmission requested). If the paper did not conform, why was this not made clear at the start?
5. The apology for this whole process taking 8 months was scant and formulaic.
Motivation:
After two time revision my paper was accepted
Motivation:
The whole process is fast and well handled by the editor.
Motivation:
The editor was very responsive and he processed all necessary things in a due manner. One external reviewer provided very constructive and details comments. However, the other reviewer did not provide quality comments.
Motivation:
Swift handling. Relevant reviewers were selected.
Motivation:
There were four reviewers for the 1st round of revision, and then one reviewer for the second round. The journal handled the review process effectively.
Motivation:
My only complain is on the time it took the whole process (2 years)
Motivation:
The peer review process was completed in less than two months, I supposed. However the journal was very slow in delivering the feedbacks to the authors, they waited for another reviewer to return the comments which took forever to respond. It ended up that we received 3 comments including one from the editor which mostly on technical parts. The journal is good, but the way they handle the review process could have been better than that.
Motivation:
Article was first reviewed by two advisory board members (apart from the editor handling the manuscript). They suggested some changes before it can actually sent out to the external review. After a month, we re-submitted the article and it was sent to two reviewers. One was positive and recommended the article for publication and second reviewer one was too naive (someone who is a direct competitor in the field), and tried to block the article from publication in Science and hence gave very bad rating to the manuscript. Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on second reviewer's comments.
My experience is that once the article is under review, it does not matter that its Science or whichever journal, it's just an ordinary article and one should not expect good detailed comments on the name of journal's reputation.
My experience is that once the article is under review, it does not matter that its Science or whichever journal, it's just an ordinary article and one should not expect good detailed comments on the name of journal's reputation.
Motivation:
Reviewers were competent and provided useful feedback. Time handling of the manuscript was definitely reasonable. Still, the manuscript was rejected based only on some critiques by one of the two reviewers which could have been answered. The other reviewer suggested acceptance with very minor revisions. Also, the editor was clearly not a specialist in the domain, despite the fact that the editorial board of the journal includes prominent scholars in the specific field of the article.