Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process started 12 days after I submited.
Motivation:
The Plos ONE review process has been the worst review process of any journal I've publish in to date. The manuscript was submitted in August, after queries, the journal staff assured that the manuscript was going out for peer review, then after a month and a half, the manuscript was rejected within a day of being viewed by a subject editor. The reasons for rejection were demonstrably false statements about the manuscript. An appeal was submitted and accepted, and the manuscript was resubmitted November 21, 2017. Now it is February 13, 2018, and "Editor Invited" has been the status for over two months.
Motivation:
I would suggest the the journals be required to inform authors when there is a change in the administrative system as that usually indicates there will be a delay
Motivation:
My manuscript was reviewed with great care, the reviewers' comments helped to sharpen my messages and absolutely improved it's quality. Correspondence with the journal was easy, very accessible.
Motivation:
Although it took a bit longer to receive reviews back than I hoped the comments were generally helpful and improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was overall very good. Reviewers' comments were very insightful and helped to significantly improve the final version of the article. However, I received the reviews only after more than 4 months.
Motivation:
In the cover letter we suggested a number of possible editors listed on the website, but the manuscript was sent to someone outside of our field of study (and not on our list in the cover letter). Given the importance of the manuscript and the scientific discovery we thought it would still be evaluated as an important paper, even by a scientist who is not an expert in this field of science. We checked the daily the submission system online, and saw that the manuscript bounced between two different editors outside of our field of study over the 4-weeks it was evaluated. From the rejection email we received it was clear that the editor had not added any comments, and there was no reason given for the rejection (Given the statements made in the form email it was clear it had not been written by a human). It took 4 weeks to receive the form rejection letter from the journal! We will resubmit the manuscript elsewhere given how important this discovery is. Hope this helps fellow scientists looking to submit to Science.
Motivation:
My manuscript used a qualitative methodology that, while well tested and reported on in previous literature, is not well understood outside of experts in the field. Although some qualitative research has been accepted to this journal it was clear that the reviewers were not well versed in qualitative research. Some comments by the reviewers were clearly hastily written--for example one reviewer objected to my using names for fear of disclosing PHI while the manuscript clearly stated pseudonyms were given.
Despite all of this I was impressed with how quickly the editor sent the paper out for review. Had this been a quantitative study it may have received fairer reviews. I will consider submitting to this journal in the future.
Despite all of this I was impressed with how quickly the editor sent the paper out for review. Had this been a quantitative study it may have received fairer reviews. I will consider submitting to this journal in the future.
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The process was very slow. The communication with the editorial board was inefficient. There was a change in the board, maybe the new team will bring positive changes for the journal.
Motivation:
Quick peer review process
Motivation:
Quick review process with constructive and detailed comments.
Motivation:
I found the comments made by the reviewers helpful and it must be said that it improved my manuscript. However, I found the process time a bit long.
Motivation:
The reviews were excellent. However, the first review round was extremely long, especially for a minor revision.
Motivation:
There are both advantages and disadvantages to Nat Comms. Upon initial submission, the editor requested that we revise and resubmit. This took three months, and resulted in a much better paper. We then went through two further review rounds, so that it was finally about 8 months before the manuscript was accepted. It then took another two months before publication, which is bizarre given that we submitted publication-ready latex proofs, and this is an online journal. We received good feedback from the reviewers, which ultimately resulted in a much better paper (!), but we agree with other authors, that the process takes far too long. Our eProofs were sent back to us with far too many simple errors to justify the GBP 3,700.00 (tax included) publication fee. Shocking, and makes you wonder how much the Nature management are profiting, at the expense of the copyediting firm in Bangladesh, who actually do the hard work of the production.
If we have one recommendation for the Nat Comms team it is to stop claiming that this is a "rapid communication" type journal. Why claim rapid turnover (one month I think), when the actual review process takes much longer? Claiming it is once month from the point of acceptance to the point of publication is trying to make it look much more rapid than it is.
Still, an excellent journal, and supportive of junior academics.
If we have one recommendation for the Nat Comms team it is to stop claiming that this is a "rapid communication" type journal. Why claim rapid turnover (one month I think), when the actual review process takes much longer? Claiming it is once month from the point of acceptance to the point of publication is trying to make it look much more rapid than it is.
Still, an excellent journal, and supportive of junior academics.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments helped improving the manuscript. Editor was fair and balanced.
Motivation:
+ The main difficulty was to find reviewers
+ Once the first revision process came, the subsequent revisions were fine
+ The final result was useful to ameliorate our manuscript
+ Once the first revision process came, the subsequent revisions were fine
+ The final result was useful to ameliorate our manuscript
Motivation:
It took about two weeks for the editor to receive the first review, Five months later I enquired about the reason for the lack of progress. The reply was that the editor was still trying to obtain another review. One month after that the editor made a revise and resubmit decision based on the somewhat glowing review of Reviewer 1.Revised and resubmitted the next day and was accepted the day after that.
Motivation:
This time around, ZPE reviewed my article quickly and, though the review process was internal, the reviewer informed us he consulted the article's content with another authority in the subject area, who was one of the main conversation partners of the article's argument. That's professional and encouraging.
Motivation:
No reason given for the rejection: the editor only said that the manuscript was not appropriate for the journal. This is somewhat unconvincing because the topic of the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal, and they have published papers with similar aims and methodologies.
Motivation:
The decision was based on the manuscript not being fit for the journal. The editor gave good reasons for this decision, even though he praised the quality of the study,