Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The quality of the review was good. Unfortunately, it took nearly three months for the reviewer to check our revisions. I emailed the editor twice about the delay, and both times the editor replied swiftly, stating that the reviewer had been reminded. After the second reminder to the reviewer, the decision was received within two days.
Motivation:
This was an overall very positive and encouraging publishing experience for our work to be accepted immediately without peer review by the Chief Editor who is a well-known figure for his high-quality, objective and meticulous reviews and feedback.
Motivation:
Even though one of the reviewers was satisfied the article was rejected on the basis of a luke warm second referee. The second referee brought up a new point - completely misunderstanding the article. The report was very poorly written and showed ZERO competence in the field. Was likely a graduate student. Very disappointing - especially after having done a lot of work on the article to take into account the referee's previous concerns.
Motivation:
I was very happy with the prompt response, which allowed us to move on to other journals.
Motivation:
Relatively fast, but relatively bad reviews.
Motivation:
Sorry, but here was no checkbox for the possibility that the editor did never answer after two revisions (I put there the date when the paper was withdrawn). I should explain - the first reviewer was constructive, we followed his/her suggestions, the paper improved, he/she did not have further comments; the second reviewer had mostly comments that we could not accept, he was not satisfied with our explanations. Probably the Editor could not decide and he never informed us. After 27.6 weeks and four unanswered e-mails to the Editorial Office we withdrew the paper.
Motivation:
Normal review, but with relatively minor revisions particularly the second review process was painfully slow.
Motivation:
The editorial board was promptly responsive to inquiries about the status of the paper. They handled it professionally, and paid attention to details. Though the initial review took a long time, it was thorough and the editor was unbiased. They also helped with the media coverage to some extent. The typesetting and formatting assistance offered by the journal is helpful. The article processing charge is not low, but it is not as high as comparable journals. Other than the long first round of review time, all the other aspects were positive about my experience with the journal.
Motivation:
I found the online submission portal to be quite easy from a user perspective. Reviewer comments were constructive and some of the editorial board comments were too. We found the whole process was pretty clear- however the quality control steps took a very long time to complete.
Motivation:
The review process was very quick.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
Motivation:
They provided fair rejection background within a short time.
Motivation:
Immediate reject after 2h. Editor just wrote a single line of 6 words: "fits better in an IT journal". Paper clearly fit with an ongoing discussion in the journal on the same topic, so that the fast and not well argued rejection came very surprising. Everything happened on a Friday afternoon/night, maybe that played a role...
Motivation:
Tribology International has drastically improved their handling of manuscripts since I last submitted a manuscript. Excellent work!
Motivation:
This was the fastest review process that I ever experienced. The presubmission enquiry is very helpful.
Motivation:
Timely, professional review process. Good comments from reviewers that improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
This was a very slow and challenging process. Our original reviews were not well thought out, but after we responded to them the editor accepted the paper. But then the journal reversed that decision and sent us four additional reviews on top of the additional 3 to respond to. Then once we addressed all of those it took another 6 months for them to assign us a new editor and make a decision. It seems that they are struggling to find enough editors to handle all of the submissions they are receiving. While the staff at the journal were pleasant and did their best, I will not be submitting to PLOS ONE again unless I hear they've gotten this issue under control.
Motivation:
This was the best review experience I've had so far. After sending a presubmission inquiry, we got a positive response within a couple of hours. After submitting the manuscript, the review process was exceptionally fast (4 reviewer reports within less than 4 weeks). Based on the reviewer's comments, we could see that they were clearly experts in the field, and even though some of their comments were difficult to address, they were very helpful to considerably improve the quality of the manuscript. Moreover, whenever we had a question to the editorial office, they always responded within just a few hours. All in all, we were very impressed by the quality of the review reports and how the editor & editorial office handled our manuscript throughout all stages of the review process.
Motivation:
I submitted in July. After months of being "under review", and no response to any emails, we received rejection on new year's eve.
From a different editor.
Who couldn't spell the name of their own journal.
Who quoted our own conclusions as a reason for rejection.
In an email with more spelling and grammar mistakes than there were lines in the email.
Finally, the rejection was stated as being due to the paper being unsuited for being sent to review. After 5 months under review!
We received no reply, or reviewer's reports, despite contacting the journal for an appeal.
From a different editor.
Who couldn't spell the name of their own journal.
Who quoted our own conclusions as a reason for rejection.
In an email with more spelling and grammar mistakes than there were lines in the email.
Finally, the rejection was stated as being due to the paper being unsuited for being sent to review. After 5 months under review!
We received no reply, or reviewer's reports, despite contacting the journal for an appeal.