Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
11.9 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The experience with JERA is excellent
Motivation:
The review reports were not strong to reject the paper. These review reports were not even useful for improving the paper.
Motivation:
Fast process, and reasons for rejection were explained. It was evident that the editor had read the paper.
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.