Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was initially deemed acceptable with minor revision, receiving very positive reviews. After the revision was submitted, one of the reviewers was changed. He outright rejected the paper, not understanding the concept and the technique presented. He did not seem to be familiar with the field and the problem the paper was addressing. He was trying to understand the paper with respect to his domain of knowledge and thus could not understand the concepts and contributions.
Motivation:
The handling editor of my manuscript provided me with very constructive and detailed comments about how to improve my work on top of the reviewer's comments.
Motivation:
I appreciate the speedy turnaround time. The editor raised some valid concerns, but we could have easily addressed them in a revision. It's unfortunate it did not go out to review for that reason.
Motivation:
This manuscript was held up for review for over 70 days. Although the editorial office was apologetic when we reminded them during the review time, the final letter from the Editor was unapologetic and all it said was that they were sorry for the delay but these things happen! No reason was given for the delay and the reviews were totally superficial. An extremely disappointing review process. The manuscript was sent to another reputable journal and accepted within two weeks!
Motivation:
I was invited by the editor to submit and told the paper would have been sent to the referees directly, a month later I found out by myself it hadn't been sent, I contacted the editor who promptly replied they were going to send it straight after, 2 months later I managed to get a review after contacting them several times. Two referees suggested the rejection of my paper. I was very disappointed to see that the motivations supporting the rejection were mostly wrong (showing limited competence) and demonstrated that at least one of the two hadn't read my paper fully. Very big disappointment.
Motivation:
It took to long to decide
Motivation:
they had good comments that helped me to improve my work
Motivation:
The review was superficial.
Motivation:
The paper was conditionally accepted by the editor following a revise and resubmit process that involved two reviewers and one associate editor. We resubmitted the paper with the formal changes that were requested to move forward with publication. The paper was then handled by a new editor, who said that we should bring down the wordcount to a certain number and he would follow the Associate Editors accept decision. We shortened the paper and the editor came back to us rejecting the paper, referring to communication problems between him and the Associated Editor and to a fellow professors opinion on the manuscript. He attached some vague lines summarizing his colleagues unqualified impressions (in his notes the colleague even admits to only having read some parts of the paper), but did not even attempt to justify his rejection of a paper that had already been accepted on the condition of making some formal adjustments.
The editor's reversal of the previous editorial decision that had been based on a fair and serious peer review process undermines the integrity of the academic publishing process. The editor's behavior is a display of crude disrespect towards reviewers, who devote their time to the review process, as well as to authors who submit their manuscript to this journal.
The editor's reversal of the previous editorial decision that had been based on a fair and serious peer review process undermines the integrity of the academic publishing process. The editor's behavior is a display of crude disrespect towards reviewers, who devote their time to the review process, as well as to authors who submit their manuscript to this journal.
Motivation:
We received three reviews. Generally, all comments helped us to either improve our technical procedure or showed us which parts need more explanation. However, extensive questions and doubts by one of the reviewers about very basic agronomic and econometric processes showed us that the journal required to frame the paper for a very general non-agricultural and non-economic audience.
Motivation:
Timely handling for an economics journal. Both reviewers were extremely negative about the paper and it seemed that neither the reviewers nor the editor fully read our work. Resulting, the reviews were uninformative, very short and of low quality. Unfortunately, the process did not help to improve our work.
Motivation:
The journal response time was very reasonable. However, the diversity in reviewers' opinions and the lack of constructive feedback from rejections did not reflect an overall fair review; particularly the fatuous ~10 word response. However, I believe that this was the reason that a third reviewer's opinion was sought.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 21.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
This was overall a fairly smooth process but there were some things that could have been improved. For example, I received two reviews back but one of them only included check box answers and the text that went along with them was not included. That is unfortunate for me as an author and also for the reviewer who spent their time on my manuscript. I emailed a revised document back three times--each time asking for the second reviewers comments but I did not receive a response to this question or a confirmation that my paper was received. Ultimately though, despite these concerns I am happy with the turn around time on this manuscript.
Motivation:
Comments were limited, more comments would be appropriate for further evaluation.
Motivation:
The overall experiences with this journal are extremely negative.with over 10 months from start to finish.
Others have noted the quality check is infuriating, We got the manuscript bounced back many times which is odd considering we used the transfer service. In the end they were apologizing for not catching the things which required amending to comply with their formatting. The quality check guidelines were also not applied consistently between our first and re submission with different requests given for certain formatting,
The journal "lost" their handling editor at least four times. I tried to check but the number of times exceeds the events log on their website! Looking back it was farcical and would almost be humorous if we weren't actually trying to publish research.
The editor reports are a mixed bag with some useful comments from some reviewers but it is clear some reviewers are not actually an expert in the given field and are not able to critique technically. This results in them providing useful comments to figure legends etc, but missing the point in some instances and providing editorial comments as part of a technical comment.
The handling editor (editors? who knows how many we had in the end) don't appear to differentiate when they receive a block of text with comments the majority of which are focused on formatting).
Overall, very negative view of the journal. A nice idea but extremely poorly executed.
Others have noted the quality check is infuriating, We got the manuscript bounced back many times which is odd considering we used the transfer service. In the end they were apologizing for not catching the things which required amending to comply with their formatting. The quality check guidelines were also not applied consistently between our first and re submission with different requests given for certain formatting,
The journal "lost" their handling editor at least four times. I tried to check but the number of times exceeds the events log on their website! Looking back it was farcical and would almost be humorous if we weren't actually trying to publish research.
The editor reports are a mixed bag with some useful comments from some reviewers but it is clear some reviewers are not actually an expert in the given field and are not able to critique technically. This results in them providing useful comments to figure legends etc, but missing the point in some instances and providing editorial comments as part of a technical comment.
The handling editor (editors? who knows how many we had in the end) don't appear to differentiate when they receive a block of text with comments the majority of which are focused on formatting).
Overall, very negative view of the journal. A nice idea but extremely poorly executed.
Motivation:
Review process was performed within a reasonable timeframe and reviewer comments were useful to improve the manuscript
Motivation:
Quite disappointed with handling times. The second round of revision took three months while ending up with only one, short, review report. Communication with the editorial team was very poor (emailed them 3 times but they never replied).
Motivation:
Editor alleged that topic would be more adequate for another type of journal, however similar works have been published in the journal in the past. They were quick in providing a decision at least.
Motivation:
A pity, but the process was quick and clear.
Motivation:
It's a pity but the process was quick and clear.
Motivation:
The first review round, that ended up in a rejection, took almost 3 months - we had to chase the editors in order to get an answer on it. Reviewers' comments were useful and much appreciated (and used to further improve our manuscript before resubmitting to another journal, where it was accepted), but the review process was too long.
Motivation:
The reviewers were knowledgeable, thorough, clear on what they thought should be addressed and clarified and very much interested in improving the quality of the manuscript. Revisions required a lot of work but, in retospective, it was most definitely worth it. The editor was professional and everything has been handled in an excellent and timely manner.