Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editor's comments were strange. I am even not sure that this editor has read the whole paper.
Motivation:
After presubmission and invited full submission they did not send the manuscript to external reviewers
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were a combination of misgivings about how our analysis had been carried out and a topic that was too restricted in its geographic relevance to be of wide interest.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
15.9 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Great & quick & helpful experience!
Motivation:
1 reviewer was for, the 2 others were against acceptance but without clear scientific reasons. One of the last reviewer said the manuscript might be out of scope...
Motivation:
One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
Motivation:
Pretty slow for immediate rejection, especially with no reason given for rejection at all.
Motivation:
The editor deemed the manuscript wasn't a sufficient advance to qualify it into the top 10% of papers submitted so rejected very quickly (same day). Happy with that turn-around and justification.
Motivation:
Very fast to immediate rejection. Rejected because it was deemed not in the top 20% of papers submitted. Fair enough, no complaints on this one.
Motivation:
Would have liked faster rejection speed for a rejection without sending to reviewers
Motivation:
Overall this was a good review process. I would have liked it to be a bit faster, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Motivation:
This was a strange case. Three reviewers: 1 strong rejection that defended their own past work rather than addressing anything in the manuscript itself; 1 intermediate review that found no real flaws with the manuscript, but suggested a stronger conservation focus would make it more suitable for the journal; and, 1 very detailed, critical and helpful review that strongly recommended publication in Conservation Letters after addressing the comments.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
The editor rejected prior to ever receiving the third review. I know this because when I requested the third reviewers comments, the editor had to e-mail the reviewer to get a copy themselves. Pretty disappointed with that part of the process. Given the amount of time it spent under review, I would have hoped the editor would at least read all three reviews prior to rejecting.
Motivation:
Pretty slow to reject without review.
Motivation:
No real criticisms. The speed to immediate rejection was fast, which is what you want if getting rejected without review.
Motivation:
I found taking 32 days to reject without sending to review quite unacceptable.
Motivation:
Review process a bit slow - this was a review article and since the review phase took so long we had to update the review with the new papers that had come out since then (quite a lot actually). Besides one of the reviewers was overzealous, picking on things that made no sense. The other two were quite fine. The editor is charming. Once the revised version was submitted the decision happened fat. Overall a nice experience.
Motivation:
After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Motivation:
The work focused on the use of a disease model to predict the public health benefit of a disease intervention. The reviewers, while knowledgeable about virology, *both* stated in their reviewers they had no background in mathematical modeling, and seemed focused on more 'within-host' aspects. Thus, the claim that the work was not "technically sound in method and analysis" was quite infuriating.
Motivation:
After acceptance on 17-11-2015, it took more than 15 (!) months to finally get the paper published on 20-02-2017. This was quite a frustrating experience.
Motivation:
Very professional approach by the editor and the reviewers.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was extremely different (both very positive, though): while one of them really understood the paper and made very useful suggestions, the other one made the impression that the reviewer was not familiar with some basic linguistic notions.
Motivation:
It was clear from the reviews that they were not competent enough in the specific topic.
Motivation:
I had the impression that all the reviewers and the editor took a lot of time to read the paper and make very constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
There was clear evidence that the editors had read the manuscript and appreciated it, but simply felt that the novelty and scope were not suitable for Neuron.