Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewer's comments were fair and largely in agreement with each other. They highlighted results in our study that bore too much similarity to earlier research, and that the novel aspects of our study were underexplored.
Motivation:
The first reviewer accepted with major revision, while the second one rejected with mentioning that "Although the study appears to have been done well, I do not believe it adds much new insight into the field"
Motivation:
Excellent Journal for rapid publication and quality review process.
Motivation:
The review process took around 3 months from my first submission till the final acceptance. Comments from the 2 reviewers are genuine and closely relating to the content of the manuscript. One of the reviewers has asked me to perform more experimentation. The revised article is accepted in 15 days. The e-article is made available immediately upon the acceptance.
I was completely satisfied throughout the process.
I was completely satisfied throughout the process.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent, increasing the manuscript quality a lot. However the overall review process was too long.
Motivation:
While the whole submission process took over a year this was partially due to my own delays in resubmission. The final journal article hardly resembles the initial article at all, and was dramatically improved as a result of the feedback from reviewers.
Motivation:
A very good review process. Clear and timely feedback.
Motivation:
Fast, interactive and good Knoweldge in scientific area review
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience with Agronomy Journal. The review process was quick and the reviews were insightful and constructive. The editorial handling was efficient. The submission website was a bit clunky, but not substantially different than any other journal. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
The review process was quick; I had the decision in my email in a month time.
However, one of the reviews did not match the content and the nature of my article, which I considered a serious ethical problem, especially because decisions are based on the reviews. Additionally, I noticed a lack of balance in the comments; both reviewers over-emphasised the downsides of the article, but no mention whatsoever of its potential contribution for this or other readership.
I tried to reach the Editor to explain the issues with a breakdown of the mismatching review. After the second attempt, he answered very briefly that the decision would not be changed.
I am very disappointed about this journal, and I doubt I'll ever send them an article again.
However, one of the reviews did not match the content and the nature of my article, which I considered a serious ethical problem, especially because decisions are based on the reviews. Additionally, I noticed a lack of balance in the comments; both reviewers over-emphasised the downsides of the article, but no mention whatsoever of its potential contribution for this or other readership.
I tried to reach the Editor to explain the issues with a breakdown of the mismatching review. After the second attempt, he answered very briefly that the decision would not be changed.
I am very disappointed about this journal, and I doubt I'll ever send them an article again.
Motivation:
The review time under editorial consideration was ten days, which was good enough. They communicated to us by saying the paper did not exhibit any novel mechanism/pathway and thus not appropriate for the broad readership of their journal.
Motivation:
Review speed was reasonably fast. However, one of the reasons why the manuscript was rejected was that a similar paper had been published in the same journal *after* we had submitted our manuscript. We inquired reconsideration of the editor decision immediately based on this ground, but it took almost two months and a lot of reminder emails to receive a response from the editor in chief, in which our concern was not addressed at all.
Motivation:
Reasonable time from submission to first decision for a letter to the editor
Motivation:
Reasonable time from submission to first decision
Motivation:
One referee report was constructive and positive while the other was mediocre and disrespectful. Editor sided with mediocre report.
Motivation:
We had 2 good reviewer reports and 1 who wanted rejection. We spent a couple of weeks rewriting and answering extensively every comment. After resubmitting, the Editor did not bother to send our comments to the reviewers, he simply stated that our negative towards performing an experiment made him doubt about the rest of our data even though we reasoned it.
If we had been asked to perform the experiment on a 2nd revision row we would have done it. It is very disappointing that we answered everything the reviewers asked and in the end they did not even get to read it.
Until this last part, the treatment had been very good and the process was quite fast.
If we had been asked to perform the experiment on a 2nd revision row we would have done it. It is very disappointing that we answered everything the reviewers asked and in the end they did not even get to read it.
Until this last part, the treatment had been very good and the process was quite fast.
Motivation:
The process was very fast, the Editor liked the topic of our paper but it did not exactly fit in the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
Submission was rejected because it was considered out of the journal scope. It took 7 weeks for this decision.
Motivation:
We only received the responses of 3 reviewers (Reviewer #4, #5 and #6), and two out of these three advised some revision topics, however they still said our manuscript deserved publishing. On the other hand, the last reviewer said our work did not deserve publication, and we then received the rejection letter.
Motivation:
The reviewers were pretty quick, however the editorial handling was extremely slow and ineffective. After the revision, both reviewers were satisfied and recommended publication. The first reviewer only asked to delete a single sentence. After making this simple change and resubmitting, it took 3 weeks for the editor to send the final decision.
Motivation:
It took 1.5 years to reach a decision on this paper, that's very disappointing. I understand that after this time, the editor did not want to go through another round of reviews, despite acknowledging that the paper addressed the concerns of the reviewer(s) at each stage, but then new issues came up.
Motivation:
The review process as speedy and transparent. The quality of the reviews were mixed, one of them could have been more specific. Just one reviewer advised to reject the paper.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 334.4 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Repeated attempts to contact the editor about the status of the manuscript remained unanswered. Even a withdrawal request remained unanswered for several weeks until I phoned up the publisher. It then took two more weeks to withdraw the paper.
Motivation:
Rejection was quick which enabled me to resubmit quickly to another journal.
Motivation:
A great journal, with a precise and almost rapid review process.
Motivation:
The interactive review forum is a very convenient way to address the reviewers' comments in a neatly arranged fashion, which also allows for an expeditious overall process.