Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We send a detailed presubmission enquiry about a Registered Report and received an invitation to submit. When we submitted the 'Stage 1' RR, we received a desk rejection four weeks later.
Motivation:
Very fluent process, high quality reviews, relatively fast
Motivation:
slow review, one reviewer argued for rejection, but two others more positive not taken into account
Motivation:
In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria for further consideration. While we have no doubt that your findings will be of significant interest to fellow specialists, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the paper contains the sort of advance in our understanding of ... that would justify publication in Nature. We instead feel that the present paper would find a more appropriate outlet in another journal.
P.S. Although we are unable to offer to publish your paper in Nature, you may wish to consider Nature Communications as an outlet for your research (if so, please see the link below). Nature Communications is, however, editorially independent and therefore I can't guarantee that they would find your manuscript appropriate for their journal.
P.S. Although we are unable to offer to publish your paper in Nature, you may wish to consider Nature Communications as an outlet for your research (if so, please see the link below). Nature Communications is, however, editorially independent and therefore I can't guarantee that they would find your manuscript appropriate for their journal.
Motivation:
The whole review process took extremely long. The editor(s) did not react to our emails.
Motivation:
The waiting time for a first response was very long (from August, 2016 until January, 2017) over the expected/average 54 days showed on the journals page (http://www.springer.com/environment/monitoring+-+environmental+analysis/journal/10661). After resubmitting the paper, the final response also took a long time (February, 2017 until September, 2017), considering that just minor chances were made to the paper.
After acceptance, the publishing process was fast and well handled.
After acceptance, the publishing process was fast and well handled.
Motivation:
A message "Editor assignment pending" was seen in the editorial system during 270 days (almost 9 months). My 4 letters to the editors received no answer or automatic answer "Your paper is with the editor for his evaluation and the review process will be initiated soon". I just planned to withdraw the manuscript when at last I got the message "Under review" and after a month rejection.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial rejection, stated reason was that the findings were not "sufficiently striking".
Motivation:
The decision was well justified with a quick turnaround time and with wise advices.
Motivation:
I believe it is completely unacceptable from a BioMed Central journal (charging USD 2,145 for publishing a paper) not to come to even a first editorial decision for 8 months. This happened despite numerous contacts with the editorial office during these months. Also, it was impossible to get into contact with the handling editor; we were able to reach editorial assistants only.
Motivation:
Referee reports were of high quality and improved the manuscript. Overall experience with the journal was good.
Motivation:
Toxicon was quick and efficient in handling a fundamental short manuscript. The contents of reviews were fair and greatly improved the final manuscript.
Motivation:
Peer review was superficial but fair enough. It took a bit long for a superficial peer review by one external reviewer + internal reviewer (editor) to happen.
Motivation:
The journal took >1 month to desk-reject the paper claiming it was out of scope and that they were under a high demand for publications. We do not feel the paper was out of scope, and we felt this a too long period to withhold the submission for a desk rejection.
Motivation:
Very low quality of reviews. Reviewers changed multiple times during the process. No clarification of reviews by editor. Communication took long and it was difficult to get any replies.
Motivation:
The reviewers were quite supportive in trying to improve the manuscript and bring out the best on a somewhat unconventional topic.
Motivation:
I always receive a rapid, polite response with useful feedback.
Motivation:
This is a new Fair Open Access Journal, and it is clear that the editors are putting a lot of effort into this journal. I had a little picky Reviewer who insisted that I should keep changing small details, but s/he was finally satisfied after a few rounds of revision.
8.4 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Three revision rounds so it took ca 9 months before acceptance, but I recognize that manuscript quality was improved.
What I did not like is the long time between acceptance and online publication (more than 6 weeks). In general I see from the website that some papers are published 1-5 days after acceptance and other are published after 2-3 months (I refer to the "first online" publishing, not to the assignement to an issue whith page numbers, this latter of course can take up to 6 months).
What I did not like is the long time between acceptance and online publication (more than 6 weeks). In general I see from the website that some papers are published 1-5 days after acceptance and other are published after 2-3 months (I refer to the "first online" publishing, not to the assignement to an issue whith page numbers, this latter of course can take up to 6 months).
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were very thoughtful. It was hard to see what the journal could have done better in terms of making the process simple to follow. The turnaround times were good and the editorial team responsive.
16.1 weeks
27.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Longest review process I ever experienced, which made the overall process very unsatisfactory, despite the reasonable quality of the review reports.
Motivation:
Editor's comments are vague. Some reviewers are not fair. We had given no chances to modify our paper. Really, we can write our paper with more detail.
Motivation:
Excellent review process, and the manuscript was improved for the revisions made. This is an well-run journal. In my opinion the editor made a prudent decision in not sending back out for a 2nd round of reviews; often the editorial reflex is to simply send back out to reviewers, but that was not so in this case (to the editor's credit)
45.7 weeks
50.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
This journal is professional and the paper status is up-to-date which make the authors less worry. But the reviewers comments some of them very good and many of them are not helpful. For example, a review was mentiond my paper has mistakes and grammatical errors (he/she is correct) however his/her comments have errors too.