Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected without being set to reviewers by an editor whose field of expertise if different of that of the study. The editor comments mischaracterized the scope and results of the study. The paper was finally published in a journal with a higher impact factor than Molecular Ecology, without major changes in the results and conclusions.
Motivation:
One reviewer was constructive and fair. The second reviewer, however, was no constructive and seems to have not understood the paper. The comments were irrelevant and not substantive.
Motivation:
Both reviews said they liked the paper and the comments were small things to fix. The editor even mention in his rejection that both reviews liked the paper but that because of the large amount of submitting they received they rejected it. I was able to make the changes the reviews suggested in same day and submitted to another journal. It seems the editor should have desk rejected the paper if he felt the topic was not a match for the paper, but honestly I am not sure why the paper was rejected.
Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Also one of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper as his comments made little to no sense.
Motivation:
The message they sent was: "I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."
Motivation:
Extremely fast review and production process
Motivation:
Good expertise of the referees, fast overall review and production process.
Motivation:
Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was under review in Biomass & Bioenergy for over 21 months without a first decision. Contacting the journal manager or editor did not help speed up the process. Things seemed to move forward but the process was never completed. After 21 months we withdrew the manuscript. For the last two months the manuscript was “under editor evaluation”. According to the journal manager, the associate editor had received all the needed reviewer reports. However, he was unable to make a decision. We got no response to our attempt to contact him.
Motivation:
This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
22.3 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
It took 5 months for the review to be completed. At the end I received 5 short paragraphs in all from 2 reviewers, of which 2 paragraphs contained the summaries of the manuscript written by the reviewers. In the remaining 3 short paragraphs, it seemed that the reviewers missed the main thrust of the paper and directed their criticism at secondary aspects. Although this criticism was fair, and was addressed in a version submitted later, I do not believe that it needed 5 months of review, which wasted significant time. As I asked for an update at around 4.5 months after submission, I am not sure if the review would have taken longer had I not asked.
Motivation:
The response was "unfortunately we have to inform you that it is not suitable for publication in Angewandte Chemie as the journal publishes only reviews, minireviews, highlights, essays, and short communications (see our "Notice to Authors" on the web). Your manuscript, on the other hand, is a full-length original paper and should thus be submitted to an appropriate journal."
Motivation:
Valuable comments of one of the reviewers helped to address the gaps of the paper. We resubmitted the paper to another journal.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled in a timely and professional manner. I thought the reviewers and the editor provided thoughtful suggestions and reasonable critiques.
Motivation:
After the 2nd round of review, the Editor decided to reject the manuscript. Following this we requested an appeal (on December 20th, 2016) given the positive comments of Referees 1 and 2, and our feeling that Referee 3 was biased and that his only interest was to see that a competing hypothesis be not published. The Editor accepted our appeal request on March 3, 2017 and sent again to the same reviewers the revised manuscript. The 3 referees decline the offer to review again the manuscript and the Editor recruited other 2 referees. As alternative for Reviewer #3 chose Referee #5 that is not only a member of the same institute of Referee 3, but he is also part of the same working group: thus, the probability that Referee 5 would have the same conflict of interest as Referee 3 was surely very high. Infact referee 5 suggested rejection and the Editor despite the enthusiastic comments of Referee 4 declined publication of our manuscript .
Motivation:
The submission process was easy and relatively fast. The reviews were reasonable and timely, particularly in the revision process.
Motivation:
For such a short article, more than a year and a half to review seems excessive to me. On the plus side the article was accepted, so I am happy with the final outcome.