Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
4.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
IJTIS has a strong editorial team, led by Dr Marina Dabic. The quality of review reports is generally speaking very good, clear and has sufficient details (technical and conceptual) so that submitters can learn how to improve the manuscript without having to guess the reviewers' opinions. The only issue with the journal is sometimes the lag time from acceptance to final production is a bit too slow. But the quality of final product is absolutely satisfactory, and their copy-editing is of high quality too.
Motivation:
The first round of revision was totally reasonable. Although I responded to almost all the comments from the first round of reviewing, the second revision (probably a different person) gave the criticism, which led to the rejection. Although I did not think the criticism from the second revision was reasonable, I did not have a chance to rebut it.
Motivation:
The process was very slow.
Motivation:
The Journal was unable to assign an handling editor (from the Editorial Board) 45 days after the submission (the quality check took only 4 days), because, they said, the Journal has an "external" editorial board and editors reserves themselves the right to refuse to handle manuscripts.
Motivation:
not very serious as it took long for a rejection that has been not argumented at all
Motivation:
The EIC was very kind and helpful. Despite my work was desk rejected and it took them three weeks to do so, I received helpful feedback to improve my paper.
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:
I have submitted an article for a special issue. After almost two months, I have received desk rejection without any comments apart from a note that they were overwhelmed with the number of submissions.
Motivation:
The process has been rather smooth
Motivation:
Gap between submission and editorial decision is too long with nearly 4 months.
Motivation:
Review process was fine so far. However, time between publication of online version and positive results of search engines is in the range of months.
Motivation:
Unacceptably slow, black-boxed process and really weird editorial decisions. The first two reviews were positive by the editor's own admission but were judged not as detailed as optimal, so additional reviewers were invited, one of which turned out to be hostile to the approach. This hostile review, less detailed than the first two, then became the main reason for the editor to reject the ms.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Motivation:
Waiting time too long for rejection without proofreading
Motivation:
After submission, it took about 6 weeks until the editor responded and sent the manuscript for external review. Then it took another 11 weeks until they got comments back from only one reviewer after we emailed the editor several times. This extremely slow handling of the manuscript is just irresponsible and lack of efficiency.
Motivation:
I had a great experience with PeerJ. Reviews were thoughtful and helpful. Reviewers also made their names available (not sure if this is optional or not). The submission process was thorough, and their submission system is very modern - for example, you can select which handling editors you recommend according to their expertise. I think the submission set up helps cut down on review time overall, which I really appreciate. They were very strict about including all data, code, and sampling permits, which takes time but is ethically extremely important. PeerJ sometimes waives publication fees as temporary promotions, so if you are concerned about the open-access fees make sure to check their website, social media, or with their managing editors.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.