Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Gap between submission and editorial decision is too long with nearly 4 months.
Motivation:
Review process was fine so far. However, time between publication of online version and positive results of search engines is in the range of months.
Motivation:
Unacceptably slow, black-boxed process and really weird editorial decisions. The first two reviews were positive by the editor's own admission but were judged not as detailed as optimal, so additional reviewers were invited, one of which turned out to be hostile to the approach. This hostile review, less detailed than the first two, then became the main reason for the editor to reject the ms.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Motivation:
Waiting time too long for rejection without proofreading
Motivation:
After submission, it took about 6 weeks until the editor responded and sent the manuscript for external review. Then it took another 11 weeks until they got comments back from only one reviewer after we emailed the editor several times. This extremely slow handling of the manuscript is just irresponsible and lack of efficiency.
Motivation:
I had a great experience with PeerJ. Reviews were thoughtful and helpful. Reviewers also made their names available (not sure if this is optional or not). The submission process was thorough, and their submission system is very modern - for example, you can select which handling editors you recommend according to their expertise. I think the submission set up helps cut down on review time overall, which I really appreciate. They were very strict about including all data, code, and sampling permits, which takes time but is ethically extremely important. PeerJ sometimes waives publication fees as temporary promotions, so if you are concerned about the open-access fees make sure to check their website, social media, or with their managing editors.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
Motivation:
Overall the review process did improve and add to the work and paper significantly. But then over 1.25yrs that was bound to happen even without review/editorial comments. Essentially we ended up with 1.5 papers worth of work. By then one of the reviewers - the one who had led to most of grunt work supplementary data addition to the manuscript - was pointing out our own conference abstract which we had presented about parts of the work meanwhile as reason for non-significance & non-novelty! Thankfully the editor didn't care for that one.
Motivation:
The reviews were very strong and very constructive but still surprised with the editor's decision after all the efforts that we put in.
Motivation:
This journal processes the manuscripts quite fast but the quality of the review might not be high.
Motivation:
It took the editor about a month to say that this manuscript is not adequately interesting for HYP.
Motivation:
This journal is very slow in processing the articles. I have had two submissions and it took about a year to hear back the first review report for each. Same thing when they invite you to review. They give you 40 days, which is longer than most of the journals that I have reviewed for.
Motivation:
The editorial office was very responsive and provided detailed description about the manuscript status, anytime I contacted them.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous and developed in reasonable times. However, I expected that the graphics presented would be improved in the final edition
Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The first round of review was a bit slow because there was a mix-up in the system and the manuscript was wrongly marked as being in pre-production for the first few weeks after initial submission. This was rectified after upon contacting the editor after 4 weeks had elapsed. From that point on, the rest of the process was satisfactory and hitch-free.
Motivation:
This journal's pretty quick in handling the manuscripts but the quality of reviews might not be high.
Motivation:
I had seen several other papers published in this journal with the similar research area. Surprisingly, the editor thought that our manuscript's not within the scope of the JEMA!
Motivation:
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.