Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Despite the review process was long, the editors were very helpful and responsive.
Motivation:
Very fast and efficient website. I really appreciate that the response was fast, and I didn't need to do massive formatting work on the manuscript. I only wished that the paper was reviewed before being declined.
Motivation:
The process was very smooth. Although one review was very negative and of low quality (in the authors' opinion), the associate editor sided with the other review that was much more positive. The manuscript was sent to review and decisions were taken in a timely manner.
Motivation:
This was for a special issue, and the scope they mentioned in the rejection mail was quite a bit different from the original call.
Motivation:
The review process wasn't very fast, but the reviews ultimately did help me improve my paper a great deal.
Motivation:
The quality of reviews and editorial comments were high and worth the relatively long review period. The quality of production editing, however, was not up to standard and required extra effort (i.e., several iterations and repeated comments).
Motivation:
- The editorial process takes FOREVER. We send several mails to the editor to check or to get updates, but none of these e-mails were answered.
- The review are very poor. The reviewers did not have bad intentions, but clearly, it was not their field of expertise.
+ I have the feeling that Cultural Sociology accepts just about anything. While the process is incredibly long, and you get a lot of request to revise (which do not improve the article), your article will get published in the end. I will only consider Cultural Sociology again if I have an article which does not get accepted anywhere else.
- The review are very poor. The reviewers did not have bad intentions, but clearly, it was not their field of expertise.
+ I have the feeling that Cultural Sociology accepts just about anything. While the process is incredibly long, and you get a lot of request to revise (which do not improve the article), your article will get published in the end. I will only consider Cultural Sociology again if I have an article which does not get accepted anywhere else.
Motivation:
The review process was generally good. A bit quicker would have been good, but all communication with the editorial support was excellent. In addition one of the reviewer comments were good, but obviously a bit biased in that they clearly wanted several of their own papers cited.
Motivation:
The time taken to arrive at a rejection by the editor was inappropriately long (2 weeks).
Motivation:
Received a desk-reject within two weeks without a clear reason stated.
Motivation:
I got a very positive and very negative review in the first round. The editor specified what comments I had to take seriously, taking both the negative and positive review into account. This was very helpful.
Motivation:
my very this paper after publication in other journal got cited by a paper of this journal within a month & they told me NOT FIT !!!!
Motivation:
Extremely long handling time and very poor communication. The editor never replied to my enquiries which I found very unprofessional. The journal manager replied to my enquiries but could not give detailed information about the delay. Overall a very bad experience although I have to admit that the final review reports are of high quality.
Motivation:
Smooth and speedy process, and a responsive editor. I will certainly submit to Nature Comm again
Motivation:
apart from work, writing flow should be good
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.
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:
Beware of this journal. After waiting for a long time to get our manuscript reviewed, the editor decided to reject our manuscript because of the large number of submissions the journal receives and the size of the tasks that the suggested revisions would entail. Both reviewers were fairly positive about our manuscript, but raised a few concerns. Non of the concerns were really fundamental or insurmountable. What happened to major revision? After such a long waiting time to get referee reports, the least we deserve is a decent chance to defend our hard work and revise the paper, no?
Motivation:
We suggested three reviewers upon submission of the manuscript and I think it's safe to say that the two reviews we received were from two of the reviewers we suggested.
Motivation:
The process was well explained and transparent. The editors and/or editorial assistants replied quickly and kind to all requests.
Motivation:
It's ok for me, but for my friend they took 7 months for the 1st review & took 4 months to send it to reviewers.
Motivation:
We received 3 high quality reviews that helped us further improve the quality manuscript. The response times from the journal were somewhat slower from what they strive for, but this is understandable. My overall impression was that NHB is still working on its internal routines that will help streamline the process even further.
3.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
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:
Smooth process, and editor commenting on which changes are the most important ones.