Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Excellent review process and appropriate editor selection (100%). Many positive comments from the reviewers and some of the reviewers not interested to comment, though they intended to reject with negative comments. However, editor decision very honest that improved the manuscript very vell....
Motivation:
Very fair and constructive Reviewer's criticism. The manuscript was really improved after two revision rounds. Editorial communications within the expected timeframe.
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.