Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Both reviewers stated, with reasonable justification, that the study was not novel enough for Nature Communications and would possibly be more suitable for a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
Smooth and fast process
Motivation:
Several weeks after submission the editorial office told me (upon request) that they didnt assign an editor to handle the manuscript yet. After 3 months I got an email rejecting the paper as not suitable for the journal, without any further explanation.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were constructive and helpful, the rejection came down to perception of statistical power.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
I believe the concerns raised by the reviewers could have been handled in a revision if this opportunity had been provided, but the reviewers comments were constructive and helpful.
Motivation:
The article (originally a review) was rejected, but was ressubmittable as a "letter to the editor"
Motivation:
It was fast and painless process.
Motivation:
No complaints at all with this journal. Reasonably fast review time and the paper improved in light of the referees' comments. Commentary was constructive, not pedantic. No one even asked me to write out, by hand, how I dummy coded variables (protip y'all: it's 2017...I mean, it's after 1994 and all...so...the software does that..).
Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
Motivation:
Excellent work by the editor who helped us navigate one difficult reviewer.
Motivation:
Uninformative PNAS desk rejection. At least it's fast.
Motivation:
Desk rejection prior to review claiming the paper might be better suited to a specialist journal.
Motivation:
Review procedure was fairly straightforward, with one expert review and detailed comments by the special issue editor. However, the time spent waiting from acceptance to final publication was ridiculously long. This was in part because of the special issue organisation (some authors were incredibly slow in revising yet too important to boot out), but also because STUF doesn't have an online-first publication strategy, so finished issues senselessly wait in a print queue for over a year.
Motivation:
Two detailed referee reports, which arrived in reasonable time. Pleasant communication with editors. The journal has an online-first publication mode which is great because print issues lag behind.
Motivation:
Reveiw process was almost good but distribution for referees were dilayed due to lack of reviewers about rare disease.
Motivation:
Reasoned decision by the editor.
Motivation:
The reviewers in my opinion did not even try to understand the concept of the study. The authors tried their best. Added more explanations where ever asked. But the reviewers made lame reviews in the end targeting english proficiency of the first author. The first author is a native english speaker. The manuscript was still sent to a language expert and they found the english absolutely fine. After wasting approximately 4 months the journal rejected the paper without giving detailed reasons. Therefore to conclude, they could neither find competent reviewers and neither helped the authors when the reviewers were not doing a satisfactory job. Pathetic experience!
Motivation:
The first turn-around time was a bit long, but once I revised the paper, the editor accepted the paper without sending it back to the reviewers. That certainly expedited the process.
Motivation:
Fair and rapid peer-review process.
Motivation:
The process took longer than I expected. Although the reviewers did not seem experts in the field, their comments were reasonable.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was ultimately accepted, there were lengthy delays and gaps in communication (months long) during which time no communication was received from the editorial staff, despite repeated contact attempts. Only one brief review was received prior to acceptance. Editorial staff was apologetic about the delays, but improvements are very much needed in their review processes.
Motivation:
My paper was handled very professionally and the reviewers' comments were very helpful. However, the time period between submission of revisions and acceptance was too long.
Motivation:
Our experience from first submission through both sets of revisions was a very positive one. Both referees clearly spent considerable time on the reviews, and provided reports of high quality and detail that helped us greatly in reworking certain sections of the paper. The handling time was quite lengthy, but this was not surprising given the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial team did a fine job in handling the paper and responding to queries in a timely fashion.
Motivation:
The reviewers were extremely helpful at every stage of the reviewing process. We actually learned a lot through this process. The only negative aspect was that the associate editor took 2 weeks to make a decision after the reviewers are in; the editor also took about a week after receiving the AE report. It slowed down the whole process a bit.