Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the review comments were constructive for improving the quality of our paper.
Motivation:
My manuscript was sent to two reviewers. But apparently, one of the reviewers did not respond in time. B/c Marketing Letters wants fast process, the editor made the decision based on one reviewer's rejection, agreeing that my manuscript has methodological problems, not an interesting topic, and poor English. The reviewer's comments were nice and helpful in a certain way to improve my manuscript, though the reviewer seemed not to be a very good fit for reviewing my manuscript. My manuscript was edited by the professional editing service and does not have clearly apparent grammatic errors or anything. I submitted to Marketing Letters to get a quick response, but the word limit was simply too harsh to fully and properly communicate especially for the modeling research. Although it took nearly two months to get a rejection at the first round, considering that it was right when the summer vacation started, I think the response was quick enough. The editor was also very nice and polite even with the rejection letter.
Motivation:
It was extremely slow (4 months per round) getting reviews back every time, even though we always submitted our revisions in less than a month. In the end we were rejected "because the process had gone on for so long", even though the slow-down was not on our end. We also only had a single reviewer every time, which I have never experienced before or since. I found the treatment to be unfair and disrespectful of our time.
Motivation:
The manuscript could be a fit for journal, but the editors made a biased decision.
Motivation:
After a thorough review process at APL, paper was accepted without external review. A very quick review by an associate editor was all that was required prior to acceptance.
Motivation:
Original reviewer recommended rejection and clearly did not read the manuscript. Required appeals to the editor to get it re-reviewed. Eventual reviews were helpful, but we believed unduly critical. After multiple revision rounds, was ultimately referred to J. Applied Physics, where it was immediately accepted.
Motivation:
Thorough communication throughout the review process. One reviewer was substantially more critical than the other, but the manuscript was improved as a result. Submission and reviewing was an easy process, and I would publish in this journal again.
Motivation:
After 6 days it was told that the paper should be submitted to a more specialized journal. Although the status of the paper was with the "Under Review" for 4/5 days, the truth is that no review was undertaken in our paper.
Nevertheless, the answer was quick and reasons for rejecting were given.
Nevertheless, the answer was quick and reasons for rejecting were given.
Motivation:
The points adressed by the reviewers could have easily been resolved. We believe the journal declined as one reviewer was not sure about the "fit" of our manuscript with the journal.
Motivation:
Six month wait for cursory reviews is unacceptable.
Motivation:
The first round of review was quick, but they even apologized for the delay compared to their policy, which is impressive. The reviewing editor who disclosed her/his name spotted the interesting point that significantly improved the manuscript. Overall review quality was high.
Motivation:
Editor seems not familiar with the topic.
Motivation:
At least it's quick, and reasonable decisions has been made by expert scientists, thus no frustration.
Motivation:
Editor seems not familiar with the topic.
Motivation:
The overall process was very slow.
Motivation:
I submitted a paper in this journal and we got a decision in onw week. The only problem is the lack of reasons to reject the paper without any reviews.
Motivation:
After the submission of the revised article, the editor informed that it was sent to the previous reviewers for review. However, both the reviewers declined to re-review the revised article. It was not even sent to new reviewers for review. The associate editor himself started to review the revised article. He took 3 long months to review and rejected the article without any solid reasons. We had addressed almost all the reviewer comments in the revised article.
According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.
According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.
Motivation:
All in all, the review process was fine. However, in my opinion, the quality of one reviewer's report was very low, and this reviewer was obviously not familiar with the research area. Furthermore, this reviewer then withdrew from the review process at a later stage (for no obvious/mentioned reason), which considerably delayed the review process, because then a new review round started from scratch with a new reviewer.
Motivation:
The submission process was easy. The entire review and resubmission was fast and without any problems. Site is very user friendly.
Motivation:
Reviews were useful and relevant, and the editor was supportive. However, both the first (seven months) and the second (two months and a half) editorial decisions took too long.
Motivation:
26 weeks, no comment ......
Motivation:
My main criticism is that 3 months is a lot of time for a revision process (btw, my paper was quite short, only 3 figures), thus I expected at least a constructive criticism of the reviewers. Instead, one of the reviewers criticized the methodology without providing any advice or giving us any chance to justify the choice of our method. I believe this does not lead to a proper scientific discussion.