Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Initial reviews took a while, but communication with editorial team was very good and they kept me informed of progress. Most of the reviewer comments were helpful and of high quality.
Motivation:
The turnaround times for all editorial decisions was exceptionally slow. Even after we received 3 review reports indicating now changes were needed, it was almost 1 month before we received acceptance. The manuscript was accepted 6 weeks ago and does not appear in PubMed. I would be hesitant about sending a manuscript here if there were competition and a need for a timely editorial process.
Motivation:
I think the editor handled the manuscript fair and square. It is one of the prestigious journals in the field, and I am glad to see that it is handled well.
Motivation:
This manuscript would not have been achieved without the highly dedicated support of the reviewers who provided invaluable advice and recommendations on how to it could be restructured and revised. They clearly dedicated a significant amount of time to reviewing the paper and providing extensive review comments that led to a much stronger and more coherent paper.
Motivation:
The response from the response was rather quick, compared to many other journals. The comments were rather minimal, but they both spotted a couple of (potentially quite embarrassing) infelicities, which is very helpful.
Motivation:
With my rejection I received two quite detailed, extended reviews, which were very useful. The article was accepted by the next journal practically without corrections, which should be some indication of the quality of the reviews of JLA.
Motivation:
It was a short note for which I received some quite useful feedback with the acceptance.
Motivation:
My article submission was rejected without any peer review feedback. I requested feedback and received no response.
Motivation:
The first review round took much too long for a tentative acceptance outcome.
Motivation:
The journal advertises a mean time untl first decision is delivered of 25 days, but we had to wait for 2 months. The submission system worked fine. They only managed to get 1 reviewer for our manuscript, but given the theme, we were expecting it. The reviewer comments were fair and everything he/she said helped us to improve the quality of our mauscript.
Motivation:
The reviews were of very high quality, and the referee comments certainly improved the manuscript. The complete process outcome was positive. The editorial times, however, were very long: both the initial filtering and the final editorial changes took longer than the referee process itself, which we found surprising.
Motivation:
This paper essentially disappeared without trace for 8 months after I submitted it. I would periodically email the journal staff about it and they'd say that the action editor was still looking for reviewers. After 8 months, I emailed the action editor directly to say (very politely) that it was getting a bit ridiculous now. They were very apologetic and said that they only had one review but could make a decision based on that. They asked for minor revisions, which we completed within a few days. The paper was accepted without a second round of review, to our relief.
Motivation:
Although, the initially, 2 reviewers suggested major revision and one reviewer rejected the paper. The editor asked for a major revision which was made but the reviewer who rejected still didnt agree with the quality of the paper after the revision as well and later, the paper was rejected.
6.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We got 2 reviews with only minor amendments. However before sending for review and after it, the editorial decisions took long time. Overall process was however quick.
Motivation:
Before submitting to this journal I emailed the editor as I was not sure if my work was within the scope. I received a reply on the same day inviting me to submit. This very speedy and professional response was repeated with all communications with the managing editor and editor in chief. I was also given very good advice on how to best improve a table which would appear in the main text and allowed to submit associated files both as supplementary data on the journal webpage as well as in Dryad (paid for by Journal of Heredity). Both reviewers were extremely speedy and gave good critiques in a friendly and professional manner. Overall the personal attention to detail and swift clear communication style of the editors is best I have ever experienced.
Motivation:
Until the date that I withdrew (6 months later) the online status showed 'awaiting reviewer selection'. Because of this I have emailed the administrator since July. When they bothered to send a tardy reply, it was a stock emails. In July I received "I confirm that your paper's status is still under review. Please note that we are doing our best to communicate the decision to you in a timely manner, however, the reviewers' availability might really affect the actual time lag". After no less than 5 more emails in the ensuing 5 months, the last email (which had to be sent twice before receiving a response) requesting I be informed if any reviews had come in so that I could make an informed decision about whether to withdraw the paper given that the previous journal sat on my paper for 47 weeks before I finally withdrew it. Only then did they decide to ACTUALLY check the status and wrote the following: "Upon checking the status of your paper, I have seen that some of the reviewers failed to respond with the invitations sent to them, while some have declined to review your paper. Therefore, the Editor invite another set of reviewers and waiting for their response to review the paper or not". After realising that it is the official journal of IOM (International Organization for Migration), I am doubly relieved that I've withdrawn it.
This paper has been on hold for 18 months only to have to commence the review process from scratch, yet again.
This paper has been on hold for 18 months only to have to commence the review process from scratch, yet again.
Motivation:
I found 3 weeks quite a long time to wait just to find out whether the paper would be reviewed or not. However, I was encouraged to transfer my paper to a different Nature brand journal, and the transfer process was extremely easy and convenient.
Motivation:
Three reviewers gave us helpful comments. Though some of them were reasons for rejections, the decision was very transparent.
Motivation:
Very quick internal review by one of the editors, who gave us clear understandable reason to not proceed. Unfortunate but satisfied.
Motivation:
The overall handling of manuscript was good, however I didn't like the manuscript tracking in nature communication witch offers much less information about manuscript status then is common in other journals.
Motivation:
Reviews issued by not expert referees.