Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Although not the result we were hoping for, the review process was fast, the reviews were reasonable and the editorial decision was fair.
Motivation:
Not the result we hoped for, but it was a really fast response.
Motivation:
I submitted two papers and they were rejected despite there are many more published papers by the same journal at the same period with the same tools and methods which my papers rejected for.
Motivation:
This was the worst experience I have had in submitting a manuscript. As noted by others, the submission process was extremely slow - it took 3 weeks for the journal to simply acknowledge receipt of the manuscript on each submission. The review process was also quite opaque. After the first round of reviews, we received one review (labelled 'Reviewer 2', there was no Reviewer 1), which was poorly written and did not seem to be from an expert in the field. We felt that the comments were quite superficial and required only minor revisions and we addressed them as such, however the response from the board member indicated that extra experiments were required (this was certainly not made clear in the initial decision letter, which contained only one sentence from the editorial board member). We cited existing literature to support our responses but were told that this was unacceptable. Quite frankly, the claims made by this journal that they are 'fast', 'rigorous' and 'open' are, in my experience, completely misleading. I would never submit here again.
Motivation:
This journal uses an inutile method in the submission process (by email). In this case one can not be sure if his submitted paper is seen by the editorial members or not. As well as my paper has take more than 9 months after sending by email to this journal without hearing any thing about it. Eventually, we decided to withdraw it from this journal.
Motivation:
The revised version should have been submitted within 90 days, but we asked for the extension of the dead line and they accepted the extension immediately.
Motivation:
Initial screening time is too long. It took 3 weeks and I didn't get any comments regarding the contents.
Motivation:
Anonymous review by two members of the editorial board, received a paragraph of justification and suggestion of where to submit the paper next.
Motivation:
All rounds of review were fast and professional.
Motivation:
After 8 weeks of waiting, we started contacting them, and we still had to email and call them multiple times over the next couple weeks to get an answer.
Motivation:
The review process takes too long time
Motivation:
My manuscript was with the editor for a 1.5 months. I had sent a few follow-up emails without response. Finally, I contacted another editor from the journal to ask for a follow-up and the same day the original editor to which the manuscript was submitted rejected the manuscript without any clear reason, other than that the manuscript was considered not fit for the journal. This is very dissapointing. I will never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
Very nice experience with the journal, one of the best I had in GIScience. The review process was amazingly quick and efficient, and yet quite useful (we got 4 insightful reviews). The communication with the editor was very transparent and prompt. So I can definitely recommend the journal for submissions in the field. The only complaints are about the publisher Springer: unclear policy on templates (manuscript got sent back even though we used the journal template posted on their website), figuring out the payment of the publication fee, and their production team induced errors in the PDF proof.
Motivation:
I was a little worried regarding handling time from reading the other comments here on SciRev. However, my experience with JCP was very good. The submission to first decision time was excellent and the reviewer's comments were useful and of high quality. It was my first experience with this journal, but I would definitely consider it again in the future.
Motivation:
Reasonable time from submission to acceptance without revision needed.
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review reports was very useful and professional, as well as the editorial board members. The using of latex format by the journal makes the paper form match to the journal formats.
Motivation:
The reviewers appreciated our studies and helped improve the final manuscript. We were particularly impressed by the swift handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
We decided to submit to PLoS ONE because we wanted to make our research and especially the underlying data and codes open access. The administrative procedure went really smooth and the search for an academic editor was on its way quite fast. Afterwards it took 3 months to assign the paper to an academic editor. After three more months we were informed that the Journal is again looking for an academic editor. After in total 8 months we decided to withdraw our work. During the whole process (at different points in time) we proposed two potential academic editors from the Journal's list and 4 reviewers from our field.
Motivation:
The subject of our paper was not relevant to the current concerns of the journal, but we had chosen this journal based on some relevant articles in its previous volumes. The journal has sent us a very fast feedback with some propositions for guiding us to select a more relevant journal. This fast and convincing response shows the regularity and discipline of this great journal.
Motivation:
Very transparent and fair decision. Would definitely submit there again.
Motivation:
BMC Biology determines whether a manuscript to be sent out for external review by their editor team in consultation with Editorial borad members.
Motivation:
Three high quality review reports which arrived in less than 3 months time (pretty good for linguistics and especially during summer). I learned a lot from the reviews and the papre improved a lot. The article was accepted on the same day as it was resubmitted. Very pleasant interaction with editorial staff. Smooth handling.
Motivation:
Plus: High quality reviews were fair and really improved the paper.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.