Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took more than 12 months. After the twelve months, we received two reviews: one was a one-sentence review, the other one was one paragraph touching on issues remotely related to the topic of the manuscript. We resubmitted the manuscript and had to wait another six months for the next review: A new reviewer whose review consisted of half a page of editorial and style advice, again nothing regarding the substance of our manuscript.
One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
Motivation:
I understand journals struggle to find reviewers. Our paper was very straightforward and therefore the editorial team + one reviewer was acceptable, but as such 2 or more reviews is better. However, the editor assigned to us was able to grasp the intricacies of our response to reviewers and followed the science while accepting our revisions.
Motivation:
Overall, I think the quality of the reviews were very high, but unfortunately the last review round (in which we only needed to make some editorial changes) took over six months.
Motivation:
The overall process was really fine.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.
Motivation:
The overall review process was very efficient and the review reports were very constructive.
Motivation:
Good 1: The first decision was made in one month after assigning a tracking number.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Good 2: Comments and criticism were fair.
Bad 1: Quality check. It took a long time before sending to editor.
Bad 2: Unexpected delay after revised manuscript submission.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was good and greatly improved the paper. The second round of reviews was also helpful. After an initial long wait for the first decision the process got a lot speedier. However, I felt that one reviewer and one of the editors were asking me to re-frame results in a way that was not supported by evidence, which took a number of minor revisions and rebuttal letters to agree on.
Motivation:
Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.
Motivation:
Overall, reviews weren't very negative but manuscript was still rejected. Comparably fast process though.
Motivation:
Fast and precise revisions, and rapid handling by the Editorial team
Motivation:
I do not understand why the Editors send the papers to reviewers if they think that an article does not have anyway enough priority for the journal, waisting Authors and Reviewers time.
Motivation:
Decision time for immediate rejection was really short wherefore one cannot expect more than a stereotypical rejection letter.
Motivation:
Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
Motivation:
It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
Motivation:
Very quick response, encouraging us to pursue a more fitting journal for our paper
Motivation:
The process was quick, the reviewers were focused and their remarks contributed to the paper.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
Motivation:
Rejection without review in Nature is now shame. However, after 10 days of editorial evaluation I would appreciate at least a brief comment on my manuscript.
Motivation:
Although the reason for rejection was not entirely accurate, the fast time to first decision is good
Motivation:
Fast rejection time for case reports
Motivation:
Reasonably fast review process.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.
Motivation:
Reasonably fast rejection time without peer reviewing, thus minimizing the lost time before submitting to another journal.
Motivation:
It took 2 months for the editors to find reviewers willing to review the paper.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
Motivation:
Very fast time to rejection of the case report submitted
Motivation:
Very fast review process (comments from reviewers and first decision after about just 1 month)
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was eventually accepted, the revision process took too long. I understand the topic was new, but it took them a month to accept my revised manuscript despite the fact that the revisions were very minor.
Motivation:
This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
One reviewer (out of three) has apparently not read the manuscript. Other reviewer reports were somewhat helpful.
Motivation:
Fast rejection, no reason given.