All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Editor efficient and professional.

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: 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.

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.

Motivation: This was my first submitted paper in this journal. The review process was completely good and the review process lasted about 1 month.

Motivation: My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.

Motivation: Very responsive. Submission system is well implemented. Editing was very fast.

Motivation: To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!

Motivation: The one reviewer comments were on an ad hoc basis. The editor and reviewer failed to provide a convincing reason to reject. No comments on the scientific merit of the paper. I will not even bother to submit a rebuttal because I know it will take more time.

Motivation: The reivewers' comments sound as if there have been a few misunderstandings regarding the method used (fixed effects rather than OLS). Essentially the reviewers seem to be recommending to use the same method as we already did but obviously did not understand FE. For this reason, we were wondering if these methodological misunderstandings were a decisive factor in the negative editorial decision on our manuscript and if so, whether the editorial team would consider consulting another reviewer. However, the editorial team - unfortunatenly - declined to consider another reviewer.

Motivation: One of the referees showed that they did not understand how things work in nonlinear quantum optics and requested a type of analysis that had already been shown to not work in my manuscript. They noted that some of the results were remarkable, but even so should have been culled from the manuscript.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.

Motivation: Before the submission of my paper to ADNDT, just one week I have received rejection. The editor told me that using of publicly available computer codes do not meet the journal criteria. Despite, I checked many published papers in the same time have the same codes which I used.

Motivation: After I received the first review (minor revisions), I contacted the editor to ask whether it was possible to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection in the next round in less than a month time: I asked if, if I submit on July, 24, can I get a decision by half August? To my surprise, they answered yes. Finally, I resubmitted the revision on July, 13 and got an acceptance on July, 17. I really feel they stepped up the second round because of my request, which is excellent service. The faster timing will allow me to submit my PhD thesis on the date agreed with my supervisor, a target which I had already virtually given up.