All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Reviewer suggested other experiments, however some of recommended tests do not make sense in this work.

Motivation: We received two reviewer reports after almost five months. One of the reviewers did not read the paper at all and criticized us not using some key resources, despite in reality those resources were over-used in the research. Other reviewer brought in their own methodological choice and criticised the research on having an institutional approach rather than a bottom-up approach. The editors were not responsive and we believe they handled the submission very poorly.

Motivation: The first round of review took a long time as the reviews sat with the editors for months before we received them. This is probably because of the length of the reviewers' comments, which was 8 pages. It was frustrating knowing the reviews were back and not hearing anything, however on the positive side the editorial staff were very helpful throughout the process.

Motivation: In the beginning, the paper took more than 6 weeks to be assigned to the editor. We emailed the editorial assistant and he was extremely helpful and attentive. Throughout the submission process, we emailed the editorial assistant several times with different inquiries about the paper and he was always fast in replying and helpful. In our view, the quality of the reviewer reports was not the best. However, their suggestions were quite clear and straightforward. Overall, they were able to understand the main argument of the paper which is not always guaranteed with peer-reviewers. All in all we are quite satisfied with the way in which our manuscript was handled by the EERJ.

Motivation: We submitted a relatively short and simple paper. The first round of review took 2 months. Both reviewers said to accept the paper with very minor changes. However, the editor did not agree and decided to reject the manuscript with invited resubmission. We made all suggested changes and resubmitted the manuscript. The 2nd round of review took 3 months. Both of the original reviewers said they were satisfied. However, a 3rd reviewer did not agree with the premise of the paper, although I do not believe he/she entirely understood the message. Thus the editor said he/she could not accept the manuscript given an additional reviewer gave a negative report. Thus the manuscript was refused with no possible resubmission. The process took 6 months, which was all time entirely wasted. Several emails to the editorial team during the review process went un-answered. Despite the fact that both original reviewers suggested to accept the paper the editor refused it. The most bothersome part is that we were given an invited resubmission, however the editor clearly did not like the paper and should have made this decision right away instead of wasting so much time.

Motivation: The review process was smooth. The payment process after acceptance was a bit cumbersome, as this is my first time to pay article processing charge (APC),

Motivation: It took the editor almost 3 weeks to make the decision to reject without review, which I found a bit long, but they apologized for the delay in the decision letter.

Motivation: I received first round of revision, including one reviewer and the AE, after ~10 months. The AE was quite positive. I revised and resubmitted. The sole reviewer that we got in the first round was fully satisfied but the AE had invited another reviewer who made some so-called major comments. Although these major comments were not rightful (some were even contradicted by the reviewer himself), the AE rejected the manuscript primarily because lack of sufficient novelty (which was indeed acknowledged by both reviewers). So, after ~15 months, I decided to submit this manuscript to another journal...

Motivation: Was told that the paper was not novel enough for the journal.

Motivation: The process was very slow.

Motivation: not very serious as it took long for a rejection that has been not argumented at all

Motivation: The reviewers raised important points that, once addressed, significantly improved the manuscript. However, the second round of revisions took too long. The first reviewer accepted to revise the manuscript one more time and then apparently vanished into thin air. The editor waited a long time before contacting a replacement reviewer. We had to contact the editor to get feed back. Also, the online manuscript tracking system is not at all informative as our manuscript had been "under consideration" the whole time and never changed status. We are happy with the outcome and appreciated the comments made by the reviewers, but found the overall process very long.

Motivation: Gap between submission and editorial decision is too long with nearly 4 months.