Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The experience with Scientific Reports was very mixed; I personally think that 10 weeks is a very long time for a first review;
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
Motivation:
I cannot rate the review as perfect (score 5) since one of the first rerviewers was not really competent. He/she made practically only technical comments.
Motivation:
Following an internal editorial assessement it was decided that the study is limited in scope and novelty, and would be more suitable for a more specialised journal.
Motivation:
Although I was not satidfied with the quality of the internal editorial assessement I appreciate the speedy editorial handling.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with my submission process with this journal. The process was fast and the reviewers' comments showed that they were experts in the field.
Motivation:
The manuscript does not demonstrate the sort of clear conceptual advance with broader implications that would demand the attention of a wider audience of physicists
Motivation:
We submitted a manuscript which was returned 3.7 weeks later with a note from the Academic Editor requesting revisions to the abstract, clarity on access to data, and more details on the methods. The editorial office also requested a copy of the LaTeX source document and some details on roles and conflicts of interest. We turned all this around in around 4 days and resubmitted. The Editorial Manager interface indicates that the manuscript is out for review. However, it's been over 90 days since the original submission and any inquiries have been responded to promptly with what appears to be polite boilerplate text from the editorial office. This experience is in contrast to an earlier submission, which underwent final disposition (acceptance) including a revision in 87 days. It's possible that the process is simply overwhelmed by many submissions and this is an outlier experience but I must confess to a loss of confidence. So we've requested withdrawal of the manuscript and will find another journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers were clearly experts in the field and identified a methodological problem we had overlooked. This clearly improved the paper.
Motivation:
In general, the manuscript was processed fast, so the editorial process is quite well organized. But the choose of reviewers was very terrible. Only 1 of 3 referees did really understood the main concepts of the work reported, thus gave relevant comments and asked questions. Other two referees' comments were completely out of point and, at the same time, very critical. One of them said explicitly that he\she is not an expert and did not understand what is a difference with some another well-known paper in our area. So, the editors should have paid much more attention to the process of choosing referees.
Motivation:
The handling editor clearly articulated the reason of the rejection: "This work does appear to be of a high quality and is interesting but is outside the current scope of the journal."
I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
Motivation:
The communication was fast. The reviewer concentrated only on the weaknesses of the study (I mean the speculative part of the dscussion) and did not take attention to the other, well substantiated mertits. Despite the final decision was reject, I think the review and the editorial handling was fair.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
We sent our work to PLOS One because it is supposed to provide high-quality, fast reviews. We asked every couple of months, and the paper, at least up to the 6th month, did not have an assigned editor yet. We finally got the reviews after 8 months, with one reviewer advising acceptance and one reviewer rejection, and got an outright rejection. I believe that we should have gotten a third review, and that the two reviews we got are not high quality and were not fast. Overall, a disappointing (and slow) experience.