Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The duration was really long and one of the two reviews was batched (the other review was correct). I would like to say that I have no problem with being rejected (rejection is the rule in Academia), but I want to denounce the low quality of this journal (or for being fair, my bad experience with this journal.
Motivation:
The review process for this journal was very time-efficient and the editorial office was clear in their email communication. Having published a protocol with the journal, we are pleased the results paper will appear in the same journal.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The submitted manuscript apparently was sent to several reviewers. However, no suitable referee could be found within three months. While finding a referee might indeed be a difficult task in some cases, I would have appreciated a note from the editorial office regarding the status of my manuscript after such a long time.
Instead, information was only given after I contacted the editorial team myself. I also never received any answer from the editor himself (who is, in fact, unknown to me up to this date).
Instead, information was only given after I contacted the editorial team myself. I also never received any answer from the editor himself (who is, in fact, unknown to me up to this date).
Motivation:
Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Serious handle by the editor.
However, the editing process did not respect the mathematics typo I used and degrade it.
However, the editing process did not respect the mathematics typo I used and degrade it.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I think the editor decision was fair and reasonable, because we provided new results but of not interested ions enough to the scientific society.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected without being set to reviewers by an editor whose field of expertise if different of that of the study. The editor comments mischaracterized the scope and results of the study. The paper was finally published in a journal with a higher impact factor than Molecular Ecology, without major changes in the results and conclusions.
Motivation:
One reviewer was constructive and fair. The second reviewer, however, was no constructive and seems to have not understood the paper. The comments were irrelevant and not substantive.
Motivation:
Both reviews said they liked the paper and the comments were small things to fix. The editor even mention in his rejection that both reviews liked the paper but that because of the large amount of submitting they received they rejected it. I was able to make the changes the reviews suggested in same day and submitted to another journal. It seems the editor should have desk rejected the paper if he felt the topic was not a match for the paper, but honestly I am not sure why the paper was rejected.
Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Motivation:
The message they sent was: "I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
Extremely fast review and production process
Motivation:
Good expertise of the referees, fast overall review and production process.
Motivation:
Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was under review in Biomass & Bioenergy for over 21 months without a first decision. Contacting the journal manager or editor did not help speed up the process. Things seemed to move forward but the process was never completed. After 21 months we withdrew the manuscript. For the last two months the manuscript was “under editor evaluation”. According to the journal manager, the associate editor had received all the needed reviewer reports. However, he was unable to make a decision. We got no response to our attempt to contact him.
Motivation:
This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
22.3 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
It took 5 months for the review to be completed. At the end I received 5 short paragraphs in all from 2 reviewers, of which 2 paragraphs contained the summaries of the manuscript written by the reviewers. In the remaining 3 short paragraphs, it seemed that the reviewers missed the main thrust of the paper and directed their criticism at secondary aspects. Although this criticism was fair, and was addressed in a version submitted later, I do not believe that it needed 5 months of review, which wasted significant time. As I asked for an update at around 4.5 months after submission, I am not sure if the review would have taken longer had I not asked.
Motivation:
The response was "unfortunately we have to inform you that it is not suitable for publication in Angewandte Chemie as the journal publishes only reviews, minireviews, highlights, essays, and short communications (see our "Notice to Authors" on the web). Your manuscript, on the other hand, is a full-length original paper and should thus be submitted to an appropriate journal."
Motivation:
Valuable comments of one of the reviewers helped to address the gaps of the paper. We resubmitted the paper to another journal.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled in a timely and professional manner. I thought the reviewers and the editor provided thoughtful suggestions and reasonable critiques.