Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
In my opinion, the review process took too long. After almost four months of "under review" status, I contacted the editor asking what was going on. The reviews were sent to me about a week after my query, so it seems it was necessary to ask the editor to urge the reviewers. Received reviews were very accurate and it was clear the reviewers read and reviewed the manuscript carefully. The publishing process after acceptance was quick and well managed.
Motivation:
The process was fast which is good. On the other hand the manuscript has been invited which made this decision to reject without review very surprising.
Motivation:
2 months for a first response
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewing process was too long for a relatively straightforward rejection.
Motivation:
Reviewing time could have been faster for a relatively straightforward rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers were good and had valid suggestions. The editor was terrible, the overall handling of the manuscript took ages and we had very simple changes to make. It seems like the edito forgot or did not push the reviewers for answers to our comments. Also, after the second revision the reviewers were satisfied but the editor himself decided we had to repeat several experiments. We repeated the experiments, nothing changed in the manuscript or conclusions and still took another 3 weeks to get an answer, and then another 2 weeks for the final acceptance. Every week we e-mailed the editor asking for updates, most times got no reply. Unacceptable that it took so long, will never submit to NatComm again!
Motivation:
Poor initial assessment. The argumentation for rejection was scientifically incorrect (claiming that the structures we report are known, which is not true).
Motivation:
quick rejection
Motivation:
The 14 week time for the second review included edits made by the editor herself. Prior to this, the paper was unofficially accepted; however the official notice did not come until we did one round of minor edits with the editor.
Motivation:
Two reviewers expressed some doubts but were essentially encouraging. One review was so obnoxious as to prompt a query to the Editor on how to respond to such a discourteous and unprofessional review (s/he used terms like "ignorant", "naïve", "ridiculous", "self-serving" to describe us/our work!). The editor was extremely helpful and responsive in helping us to manage this difficult review. Overall I felt the Ed was not slavishly bound to reviewer recommendations and had sufficient flexibility and knowledge of the field to make a reasoned and rapid decision on our paper.
Motivation:
Very poor initial assessment. It seems that the editor did not understand the main message of the manuscript.
Motivation:
I felt the decision to reject was not well justified. It did not match the content of the reviews, which were generally encouraging.
Motivation:
The overall review process was very pleasant, the reviewers had several constructive criticisms to make regarding the MS. Upon making the requested revisions, the turn around time was prompt.
Motivation:
I found the reviewer and editor's to be very insightful and constructive. As such they greatly improved the quality of the MS. More in they were returned in a prompt manner. The MS was ultimately referred to Ecosphere.