Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
I was a little worried regarding handling time from reading the other comments here on SciRev. However, my experience with JCP was very good. The submission to first decision time was excellent and the reviewer's comments were useful and of high quality. It was my first experience with this journal, but I would definitely consider it again in the future.
Motivation:
Reasonable time from submission to acceptance without revision needed.
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review reports was very useful and professional, as well as the editorial board members. The using of latex format by the journal makes the paper form match to the journal formats.
Motivation:
The reviewers appreciated our studies and helped improve the final manuscript. We were particularly impressed by the swift handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
We decided to submit to PLoS ONE because we wanted to make our research and especially the underlying data and codes open access. The administrative procedure went really smooth and the search for an academic editor was on its way quite fast. Afterwards it took 3 months to assign the paper to an academic editor. After three more months we were informed that the Journal is again looking for an academic editor. After in total 8 months we decided to withdraw our work. During the whole process (at different points in time) we proposed two potential academic editors from the Journal's list and 4 reviewers from our field.
Motivation:
The subject of our paper was not relevant to the current concerns of the journal, but we had chosen this journal based on some relevant articles in its previous volumes. The journal has sent us a very fast feedback with some propositions for guiding us to select a more relevant journal. This fast and convincing response shows the regularity and discipline of this great journal.
Motivation:
Very transparent and fair decision. Would definitely submit there again.
Motivation:
BMC Biology determines whether a manuscript to be sent out for external review by their editor team in consultation with Editorial borad members.
Motivation:
Three high quality review reports which arrived in less than 3 months time (pretty good for linguistics and especially during summer). I learned a lot from the reviews and the papre improved a lot. The article was accepted on the same day as it was resubmitted. Very pleasant interaction with editorial staff. Smooth handling.
Motivation:
Plus: High quality reviews were fair and really improved the paper.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Motivation:
Very constructive reviews and a fast decision after submitting the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Editor efficient and professional.
Motivation:
Very long desk rejection process, zero personalised feedback. Waste of time.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted on 1st May on a Special Issue. The outcome of the review process was expected on 31st July. On 28th August, we sent an email to the guest Editor asking for some news without any reply. On 8th September, we sent an email to the Editor in Chief, who imformed us about the rejection with only one attached review.
Motivation:
Good and timely handling of the manuscript. Competent reviewers and a communicative and devoted editor.
Motivation:
In this journal they follow, as I later discovered, the following procedure:
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Overall quality of reviews and journal submission system is excellent. Editor was not a subject area expert and deferred to nitpicking of reviewers too much, requiring multiple rounds of review that could have been more efficiently handled.
Motivation:
Overall, very happy with quality of reviews and review process. However, the journal's office policy/submission system can be improved. Currently, G3 has two options for revise and resubmit. The first allows 30 days to revise and does not require entering metadata for the article again. The second allows 90 days to revise but requires the author to manually re-enter all of the metadata required for a new submission.
Motivation:
The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.