Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I had a great experience with PeerJ. Reviews were thoughtful and helpful. Reviewers also made their names available (not sure if this is optional or not). The submission process was thorough, and their submission system is very modern - for example, you can select which handling editors you recommend according to their expertise. I think the submission set up helps cut down on review time overall, which I really appreciate. They were very strict about including all data, code, and sampling permits, which takes time but is ethically extremely important. PeerJ sometimes waives publication fees as temporary promotions, so if you are concerned about the open-access fees make sure to check their website, social media, or with their managing editors.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took an abnormally long time (28 weeks), and even then an incomplete set of reviews were sent. These review reports were good and helpful to improve the manuscript. Subsiquent rounds were less helpful.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
The proofing process was very poorly done. The online proofing system was not very user friendly. There seems to be a major step between the online proof and as published. A major omission was made and a correction had to be made (by the journal). There are still typos in the final published version that were not in the submission.
Motivation:
Overall the review process did improve and add to the work and paper significantly. But then over 1.25yrs that was bound to happen even without review/editorial comments. Essentially we ended up with 1.5 papers worth of work. By then one of the reviewers - the one who had led to most of grunt work supplementary data addition to the manuscript - was pointing out our own conference abstract which we had presented about parts of the work meanwhile as reason for non-significance & non-novelty! Thankfully the editor didn't care for that one.
Motivation:
The reviews were very strong and very constructive but still surprised with the editor's decision after all the efforts that we put in.
Motivation:
This journal processes the manuscripts quite fast but the quality of the review might not be high.
Motivation:
It took the editor about a month to say that this manuscript is not adequately interesting for HYP.
Motivation:
This journal is very slow in processing the articles. I have had two submissions and it took about a year to hear back the first review report for each. Same thing when they invite you to review. They give you 40 days, which is longer than most of the journals that I have reviewed for.
Motivation:
The editorial office was very responsive and provided detailed description about the manuscript status, anytime I contacted them.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous and developed in reasonable times. However, I expected that the graphics presented would be improved in the final edition
Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The first round of review was a bit slow because there was a mix-up in the system and the manuscript was wrongly marked as being in pre-production for the first few weeks after initial submission. This was rectified after upon contacting the editor after 4 weeks had elapsed. From that point on, the rest of the process was satisfactory and hitch-free.
Motivation:
This journal's pretty quick in handling the manuscripts but the quality of reviews might not be high.
Motivation:
I had seen several other papers published in this journal with the similar research area. Surprisingly, the editor thought that our manuscript's not within the scope of the JEMA!
Motivation:
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.
The process took ? months. We asked several times (how many) about the manuscript. The editor answered that he had not found reviewers. Finally, the rejection came. There were three reviews, and none of them suggested rejection. One suggested minor and two assessed the topic interesting and emerging. The editor required more experiments although none of the reviewers suggested more experiments. After a while, we got to know that there had been one more review that had been very positive. We came to know about this review, because the reviewer in question contacted us and told about it.
Motivation:
A frustrating experience. The manuscript was sent out to reviewers 4 months after the submission, and only after we contacted the editor to ask about progress. The editor did not respond to this email nor explain the delay, but a few weeks later the manuscript was finally sent to external reviewers. The quality of the reviews was mixed, one being strong and constructive, one incorrect based on a misunderstanding of the methodology (criticizing something which was not done), and one very short. The reviews contained no recommendations regarding rejection or resubmission and the editor did not comment on the content of the manuscript nor summarize the reviews to explain why the manuscript was rejected instead of invited for a resubmission, given that most of the reviewer suggestions were questions for further elaboration or analyses which could be adressed in a revision.
Motivation:
Although the editor rejected our paper, we received a quite positive letter from her. The problem mostly lied in that our paper was not interesting enough and the editor had an idea of that before sending the paper for peer review. However she acted professionally and based her final judgement at least partly on one of the reviews.
Motivation:
Quality check process also takes time. At least one week. Reviews were constructive and I agree with several points the reviewers made.
Motivation:
I received an incredibly considerate and constructive rejection letter, the most encouraging and helpful rejection I have ever received.
Motivation:
Two positive reviews, suggesting minor revisions, one positive review that suggested a reframing, and one off-the-charts sarcastic, unpleasant, reviewer who hated the paper and accused it of numerous misunderstandings, while himself clearly lacking basic knowledge of the field. Maybe the editors received the poor review first, then kindly sent it on to the other more positive reviewers - but honestly, that was one of the least helpful and nastiest reviews I have ever received and I would hope nobody else ever had to experience it.
Motivation:
One referee made useless comments like "you should change the text" or "let someone who is a native speaker check the English" (even though my co-author is native English speaker and the manuscript was checked by a professional proof-reading agency). Additionally, the reviewer was demanding information which was definitely included in the manuscript. Still I tried to address all his/ her comments in a satisfying way. Yet, in the end the reviewer rejected with the sentence "It looks like a normal paper". No helpful comments during the whole process. Luckily, when I contacted the Editor, he agreed with me and exchanged the one reviewer. Ulitmately, the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
Reviewers gave technically limited arguments which were rebutted after outright rejection, to no avail.
Motivation:
After waiting a long time for an editorial revision, the paper was denied publication without any sort of reasoning or justification. After inquiring the editor for a reason and being given a nod for an answer I am still waiting for a reply. That experience was extremely frustrating.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The process was satisfactorily fast. I was informed that my manuscript does not trump their already existing vast number of submissions (not exactly in these words, but the meaning was clear). The editorial staff did not waste my time and were quite clear about their rejection grounds. I would recommend submitting to this journal.
7.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were useful (although somewhat too demanding) and helped us improve the manuscript. The editor was helpful and asked us to resubmit within 4 weeks.
Motivation:
Review process was efficient and response received in short duration. Although reviewers comments were overall positive and can e addressed, editors decided to reject.
Motivation:
Paper was transferred from Neuron based on fake critics. Reviewer made false presentation of the manuscript content and constructed on those fakes a fake criticism. Editor at Cell Reports send again to same reviewer even so my detailed response to the invalid arguments should have been obvious. Reviewer took this opportunity to again abuse his anonymity and produced fake more news. Most unpleasant experience of a mail-robotic editor.
Motivation:
Although I do not know when the editorial board submitted requests to the reviewers, the reviews were not reflecting 3-month-period of the thorough review.
- The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work.
- The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references)
- The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced.
I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal.
I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic.
The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude.
Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.
- The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work.
- The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references)
- The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced.
I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal.
I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic.
The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude.
Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.