Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first rejection was based on only a single reviewer, who appeared to have not even read the manuscript thoroughly. He/she repeatedly crticised an experimental method that was not even used in this work. He/she was also majorly criticizing the exact approach of the uncertainty reporting (like, that it should be specified to be standard or expanded uncertainty, and that e.g. for a table where and how it should be etc.). These aspects are however more template-based aspects, and thus shoudl not be basis for rejecting an article carrying a content of scientific value.
When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection.
Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision.
Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.
When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection.
Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision.
Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.
Motivation:
Prompt feedback on paper and good justification given for not being appropriate for the journal.
Motivation:
long time of response.
Motivation:
paper was too descriptive for the journal, suggested two alternative journals to try
Motivation:
the process has make a huge time to be performed
waste of time
waste of time
Motivation:
Manuscript and review process was well handled, quite fast, and the reviewers' comments were helpful and of high quality. Would submit again.
Motivation:
The review process was quite rapid considering the length of our manuscript. Reviewer comments were constructive and well-articulated; the quality of our manuscript was very much improved after taking those comments into consideration. The formatting of the reviewer comments occasionally made it difficult to decipher them. Slightly clearer formatting, which separates out the different points a bit more, may, therefore, be helpful in the future.
Motivation:
The Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical is a great journal in the field of parasitology and its acceptance processes is fast and satisfactory.
Motivation:
The editors were helpful, but the review process took much longer than the projected 4 to 6 months. After almost a year, only one of the reviews had any comments to make, and they were rather superficial. I realise this is not the journal's fault but rather a defect of the peer review process in general, but it nevertheless needs to be stated.
Motivation:
The overall handling of the manuscript was good. However, the first round of reviews took a quite substantial time and all reviews were very short. Nevertheless, the quality of reviews was good, the reviewers had some good points, and the final version of manuscript is better than the original.
10.8 weeks
12.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The Chief Editor wrote "Your manuscript has been examined editorially and I regret that I am rejecting it without formal review". This was followed by the comments of the Subject Editor referring to that "the manuscript has received three excellent reviews, recommending either ‚reject’ (Reviewer 1) or ‚requiring substantial revision and re-re-view’ (Reviewers 2 & 3). The reviewers´ comments were not provided to us. We had to ask for these and it took some days to get them. The comments were not available in the online system either.
Motivation:
It took almost a year to be published online. Perhaps more than one year to the printed version.
Motivation:
I appreciate the comments that the two reviewers gave.
Motivation:
We received reports of 3 reviewers. 2 reviewers made positive comments about the importance of our work and suggested some very useful revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Both of them recommend acceptance after some revisions (First reviewer - mijor, second - major). However, third reviewer totally misunderstood our work and made comments which were "strange" as well as claimed we "did no do anything new" and offered rejection of our work. The editor (Huimin Zhao) rejected our work immediately without giving any explanation.
Motivation:
We sent our manuscript at 8 AM and received a response within hours, I remember the decision letter stating that our manuscript almost "caught their attention". Our manuscript ended up being accepted in a similar journal.
Motivation:
It was quite fast process.
Moreover, 2 out of 3 review's comments are exceptionally valuable to improve my future research.
Moreover, 2 out of 3 review's comments are exceptionally valuable to improve my future research.
Motivation:
Topical and constructive reviews, fast turnaround -- overall a very good experience.
Motivation:
Long review times. Encouraging editor.
Motivation:
Scientific Reports advertises fast decision and constructive peer review, but the process is anything but. As other reviews here indicate, each submission requires a 2 week long quality check before it is sent to the editor. If one minute error is found, you have to start over. After the long process of waiting for review reports to come back (~2-3 months each time), the reviewers were clearly not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Comments from one reviewer in particular were not constructive and complained that the paper was not scientifically sound without providing justification. After two rounds of revision and satisfying two out of three reviewers, the editor decided to send the manuscript to a fourth reviewer who ultimately rejected it. Reviewers complained that the findings of the manuscript are not noteworthy even though the journal explicitly states not to make judgement on significance.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial decision. Rejected based on lack of compelling conceptual advance.
15.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
Motivation:
The editorial process improve our work, but the entire process is too long.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted on October, 1st, 2016. In December the referees for this paper was found. In June, 2017 I inquired about the manuscript status to the editor and found that one of the referees has disappeared. Therefore the editor in Chief accepted the manuscript based on the one review and his personal impression on the paper. Overall process took too long due the missing review from one of the referees.
Motivation:
The review process was great - good communication and prompt feedback.
Motivation:
Review reports were detailed and communication was clear. However, I did wait a long time for peer review feedback, and I only heard back after reminding the editor.