Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After the 2nd round of review, the Editor decided to reject the manuscript. Following this we requested an appeal (on December 20th, 2016) given the positive comments of Referees 1 and 2, and our feeling that Referee 3 was biased and that his only interest was to see that a competing hypothesis be not published. The Editor accepted our appeal request on March 3, 2017 and sent again to the same reviewers the revised manuscript. The 3 referees decline the offer to review again the manuscript and the Editor recruited other 2 referees. As alternative for Reviewer #3 chose Referee #5 that is not only a member of the same institute of Referee 3, but he is also part of the same working group: thus, the probability that Referee 5 would have the same conflict of interest as Referee 3 was surely very high. Infact referee 5 suggested rejection and the Editor despite the enthusiastic comments of Referee 4 declined publication of our manuscript .
Motivation:
The submission process was easy and relatively fast. The reviews were reasonable and timely, particularly in the revision process.
Motivation:
For such a short article, more than a year and a half to review seems excessive to me. On the plus side the article was accepted, so I am happy with the final outcome.
Motivation:
Although not the result we were hoping for, the review process was fast, the reviews were reasonable and the editorial decision was fair.
Motivation:
Not the result we hoped for, but it was a really fast response.
Motivation:
I submitted two papers and they were rejected despite there are many more published papers by the same journal at the same period with the same tools and methods which my papers rejected for.
Motivation:
This was the worst experience I have had in submitting a manuscript. As noted by others, the submission process was extremely slow - it took 3 weeks for the journal to simply acknowledge receipt of the manuscript on each submission. The review process was also quite opaque. After the first round of reviews, we received one review (labelled 'Reviewer 2', there was no Reviewer 1), which was poorly written and did not seem to be from an expert in the field. We felt that the comments were quite superficial and required only minor revisions and we addressed them as such, however the response from the board member indicated that extra experiments were required (this was certainly not made clear in the initial decision letter, which contained only one sentence from the editorial board member). We cited existing literature to support our responses but were told that this was unacceptable. Quite frankly, the claims made by this journal that they are 'fast', 'rigorous' and 'open' are, in my experience, completely misleading. I would never submit here again.
Motivation:
This journal uses an inutile method in the submission process (by email). In this case one can not be sure if his submitted paper is seen by the editorial members or not. As well as my paper has take more than 9 months after sending by email to this journal without hearing any thing about it. Eventually, we decided to withdraw it from this journal.
Motivation:
The revised version should have been submitted within 90 days, but we asked for the extension of the dead line and they accepted the extension immediately.
Motivation:
Initial screening time is too long. It took 3 weeks and I didn't get any comments regarding the contents.
Motivation:
Anonymous review by two members of the editorial board, received a paragraph of justification and suggestion of where to submit the paper next.
Motivation:
All rounds of review were fast and professional.
Motivation:
After 8 weeks of waiting, we started contacting them, and we still had to email and call them multiple times over the next couple weeks to get an answer.
Motivation:
The review process takes too long time
Motivation:
My manuscript was with the editor for a 1.5 months. I had sent a few follow-up emails without response. Finally, I contacted another editor from the journal to ask for a follow-up and the same day the original editor to which the manuscript was submitted rejected the manuscript without any clear reason, other than that the manuscript was considered not fit for the journal. This is very dissapointing. I will never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
Very nice experience with the journal, one of the best I had in GIScience. The review process was amazingly quick and efficient, and yet quite useful (we got 4 insightful reviews). The communication with the editor was very transparent and prompt. So I can definitely recommend the journal for submissions in the field. The only complaints are about the publisher Springer: unclear policy on templates (manuscript got sent back even though we used the journal template posted on their website), figuring out the payment of the publication fee, and their production team induced errors in the PDF proof.