Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Considering that the paper was a very simple study, the review process was far too long. The reviews did not improve the paper in this case and there was quite a lot of messing around (e.g. we were asked why we hadn't sent back the corrected proofs when we had actually never received these and also we hadn't even heard back whether our final changes/revision were okay). We were asked right at the end to add a few lines in the materials and methods - (post review - so I'm not sure where this came from) but in the end these lines were not included at all.
Motivation:
During the first round of reviews I had three reviewers; one highly positive, one quite neutral and one extremely negative. The very negative reviewers comments were tough to respond to as they seemed very opinion-based/personal rather than identifying a scientific flaw in my work. The editor provided very balanced advice on how to address the three quite different reviews and gave clear guidance on which points were particularly important to address. Overall this paper improved significantly because of these reviewers and because the editor allowed us the chance to improve it.
Motivation:
Straightforward submission process. Relatively fast review and response times. Fair reviewal process and editorial decision making. Proofs were created quickly with close personal attention to detail by the editor in chief.
Motivation:
In general, I am positive about how my manuscript was handled, and the amount and the quality of the reviews received.
A little bit disappointing was the duration of the second review round and duration of the third review round.
A little bit disappointing was the duration of the second review round and duration of the third review round.
Motivation:
The process was slow, but much of the time was due to delay in starting revisions on our part. The first reviews were very mixed: two were extremely positive, and the third was mean and generally unhelpful. The mean review asked for a lot of changes that we didn't think would improve the paper, and many of them are things we were asked to change back during the second round of reviews. Overall, we thought the editors handled the situation extremely well, though, and the paper was much improved as a result.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was not clear, although the editor suggested to submit to a specialist journal, hinting the study was too specialist for the journal. However, we appreciated that the response came within a week's time from submission.
Motivation:
Really good reviews that will improve approach if revision for another journal
Motivation:
Study journal contents before submission
Motivation:
The Editorial Board and few referees did excellent work for improving the manuscript. This journal is excellent and particularly the editorial board members.
Motivation:
The decision seemed really at odds with the content of the reviews. There were some serious flaws in the paper, to be sure, but the suggestion was basically to rewrite it about a different topic, with new data that is not feasible to collect. So, it was a pretty unhelpful rejection.
Motivation:
It should be faster to consider, whether the manuscript would be of interest for journal readers. When writing an e-mail to editors directly from the submission system (asking why the manuscript is still with the editor after 4 weeks), I obtained no response.
Motivation:
Took so so long to review. Emailed editors 3 times with response of "it's out to review". When I finally got reviews, one of the two was completely worthless.
Motivation:
The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Motivation:
Reviewers did not seem very competent and reviews were useless. Waste of time.
Motivation:
Very long review process. Journal had some trouble finding reviewers. When the reviews arrived, one was of very good quality with detailed comments, whereas the other review consisted of only two sentences, and provided little information.
Motivation:
The first round of review was quite fast (7.3 weeks)
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
19.9 weeks
41.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Editor was fair and balanced, reviews were of adequate quality.
Motivation:
The reviews were pretty okay, but some comments were pretty inane. Point being, now that the paper was rejected, they won't help us actually improve it to send it elsewhere.
Motivation:
The overall process was very long. Editor has not done his job. They invited originally 4 reviewers and non of them was available to revise the resubmitted version. Two new reviewers were invited and they reject the manuscript based on argument that questions from reviewer #1 were not addressed. The process was not transparent at all.
Motivation:
Short handling time, constructive reviews, an overall pleasant experience.
Motivation:
Great experience, very quick, helpful reviews. One reviewer suggested rejection, the other a r&r. The editors apparently read my submission, too, and opted for a r&r because they saw some merits, as they pointed out. I took the reviews very seriously, and almost each thing pointed out by them made the paper much better. I am very satisfied with this experience.