Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This journal is relatively new. It has not been indexed by Scopus or JCR yet. But the editorial board, publisher (north eastern university) and the name of the journal, suggests that it is a continuation of an existing journal. Therefore, I guess they had to get new ISSN and start over. The review process was instructive and effective. I stongly recommend this journal especially knowing that it will be definitely indexed in major indexing systems after a few years.
47.7 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
It is more than 320 days since I have submitted a manuscript to AKCE int. jr. of graphs and combinatorics. The manuscript is staill labeled as "reviewer invited". I sent several emails to the EIC and asked him to withdraw the manuscript so I can send it to other journals with a more efficient handling system. But they did not reply my emails and did not withdraw the manuscript. This is a method of "freezing" the manuscript. You can't withdraw, neither you can have a response. I think this journal is actually inactive, but they keeps it on the website only as a C.V. item for the editorial borad.
Motivation:
Most of the articles published by Sys. and Contr. letters are well-written and enjoyable to read. I saw how my article was improved by the editorial advices. The reviewers were professionals in the field, being very familiar with the subject. The associate editor was a real knowledgable one with very insightfull commnets. The inly drawback, was the long handling time which may be due to the fact that editors and reviewers are very busy.
Motivation:
Journal took almost two months to assign an editor. Editor rejected paper after receiving one review. The review raised indicated the reviewer had not understood a few key points, but was largely positive. The whole process was non-transparent and drawn out.
Motivation:
Decision was thankfully very quick and handling editor actually sent some positive feedback. Said that the paper was very interesting but ultimately not broad enough interest for the journal. Gave a few thoughts that came to mind that might improve the discussion. It was nice to get some feedback even though it was ultimately rejected even if for the sole evidence that someone seriously considered it. Editor also gave feedback that they rarely accept science-rejected manuscripts except in situations where;
“the paper is excellent but (1) is too long for Science, (2) has important broader impacts even if the science is not transformatory, (3) is excellent but happens to be redundant with a recent publication in Science, or (4) it really needs to be open access”
Overall great experience even through disappointing. Would submit again.
“the paper is excellent but (1) is too long for Science, (2) has important broader impacts even if the science is not transformatory, (3) is excellent but happens to be redundant with a recent publication in Science, or (4) it really needs to be open access”
Overall great experience even through disappointing. Would submit again.
Motivation:
Hi everyone,
I waited more than 10 months for the journal to reach a decision of some sort. During this time, I have many times contacted them and received the same answer to be patient. I tried to contact the chief editor and he never responded back to me. Finally, I withdrew the paper from them because they never gave me any kind of concrete response besides be patient.
I waited more than 10 months for the journal to reach a decision of some sort. During this time, I have many times contacted them and received the same answer to be patient. I tried to contact the chief editor and he never responded back to me. Finally, I withdrew the paper from them because they never gave me any kind of concrete response besides be patient.
Motivation:
Two reviewers suggested publication, one reviewer essentially ignored that we've addressed all his/her concerns.
Motivation:
Reviewers' comments were useful, however, the review time is too long
Motivation:
out of the 3 reviewers, 2 did not send new reports indicating that the manuscript was ok for publication. However, 1 reviewer believed that the changes were not satisfactory, however, most of his comments were about details in the methods. I felt that it took too long for the manuscript to be rejected based on the opinion of only 1 reviewer, I also believe that it could have been sent again to revision.
Motivation:
Received two review reports, both requested major revision. Reviews were quite insightful and helped improve the manuscript. The revised manuscript was accepted.
Motivation:
Our submission to this journal was essentially due to the "quick review process" highlighted on the website. However, it took more than 2 weeks for the manuscript to be assigned an editor as indicated by the online portal. While we were fine with that as well, the entire process from this point onwards was just frustrating. For the next 40 days, there was minimal response from the editorial team. We were informed two weeks before our rejection that they would update us if the paper went out for review and finally received our comments after a total of 62 days of review. While the editor apologized for the delay due to lack of reviewers, we were appalled by the language used by the reviewers to describe the study. It was unprofessional and outright rude. While failing to comment on our scientific output, the reviewer harped us for our language skills, was extremely biased towards the data, asked us to perform experiments which were already present in the manuscript and even cited a wrong reference when stating why our study was not interesting enough. The other reviewer provided interesting insights into the study and we appreciated their efforts. However, comments received from the first reviewer definitely impacted our opinion of the journal and their review process.
Motivation:
Comments from 1st reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly: Yes
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) Yes
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications Yes
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right Yes
Other comments: It will be useful to have some simulated 3D radiation patterns so readers can find out which modes the antenna are operating at.
Comments from 2nd reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly No
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) No
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications No
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right No
Other comments: Readability and English needs to be checked before submission. Although the work is quite interesting; the paper is bad written. The contribution of the paper in the antennas design aspect is not in a satisfactory level.
1. Presented development is explained clearly: Yes
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) Yes
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications Yes
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right Yes
Other comments: It will be useful to have some simulated 3D radiation patterns so readers can find out which modes the antenna are operating at.
Comments from 2nd reviewer:
1. Presented development is explained clearly No
2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) No
3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications No
4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes
5. Readability and English grammar are all right No
Other comments: Readability and English needs to be checked before submission. Although the work is quite interesting; the paper is bad written. The contribution of the paper in the antennas design aspect is not in a satisfactory level.
Motivation:
Once we submitted our manuscript (13/03/18) first we waited almost two months without any answer. Once we complained they answered the 04/05/18 saying that due to the number of decline reviewers, they asked a member of the Editorial Board to review the manuscript. Finally one month after that, the reviewer and editor decided to reject the paper even though they liked the statistics, methodology, the novelty, the general question, writing and conclusions of our paper. Their major concern was related to the absence of supplementary tables but they did notice (neither they asked for) that we provided the link to a full repository with not only supplementary tables but also the code to generate every single figure in the paper from raw data. Therefore we wrote another letter to the editor (on 11/06/18) providing all the direct links to download these materials but the editor-in-chief simply responded that the decision for the manuscript was already final without giving any explanation.
Motivation:
Relatively quick turn around with option to transfer
Motivation:
While the response that we received from the journal was pretty prompt, there were no specific reasons provided for rejection. Upon going through the entire letter we realized that the editors had not even read the paper and possibly rejected it either just from the abstract or due to pure neglect.
Motivation:
A prompt response from the editor with comments pertaining to the study definitely helped us during this submission. The editor highlighted key points from our study and even suggested relevant sister journals wherein our work would be better appreciated. The experience was definitely worth the rejection.
Motivation:
Rapid, and easy, though review was not super thorough.
Motivation:
The review process was fast. It took only one day before we knew that we were under review. The quality of the reviews was ok. One had good ideas about how we could improve our manuscript, the other did not seem to have read the manuscript that well, based on the review it gave.
Motivation:
I am writing my personal experience with this journal. This journal kept your article in coma for at least one year (on the name of ‘under review “). This journal never replies to author queries. The editor does not cross check to whom he is sending reviewer request (They sent reviewer request to me to review my own paper!!!). Even after clarifying that I am the corresponding author for the manuscript, the editor did not reply to my mail. After waiting for one year 3 months, finally I wrote a mail to editor that I am withdrawing my manuscript due to inordinate delay in processing the manuscript. Again no reply from editor !!! The editorial staff of this journal does not reply to author queries.