Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
We decided not to resubmit the manuscript because we did not get the complete reviews from the reviewers on the second revision. When I asked the editor to send me the missing files, he included comments from one of the reviewers that was to the editor only, and the comments indicated that the reviewer intended to never accept our paper. Thus, we felt that revising the manuscript was not worth our time.
Motivation:
The turnaround was prompt and we got good reviews that helped us to improve the paper.
Motivation:
It is a long period of time for the editors to give you the first outcome that the manuscript is out of scope. However, admin is a very responsive.
Motivation:
The review of the first revision took almost a year, and I tried to inquire with the journal via website links and by looking up editor contact information with a web search (their contact info was not included on the website) multiple times during this time. Most of my inquiries received no response, and the one response I received was to a query I had sent over 3 months prior and the response was that the article was still in review. The review for the 2nd revision took several months, and again I sent an inquiry that was not responded to inquiring of the status of our paper.
Motivation:
Overall assessment and the time was decent compared to other similar impact factor journals. The editor handled our process with patience and gave more suggestions to improve our maniscript substantially.
Motivation:
This paper was too short for the journal, so a reject and resubmit if I was willing to expand the text substantially.
Motivation:
The handling of this manuscript by the journal was really poor. Taking four months for internal "screening" and then desk-rejecting is a scandalous waste of an author's time and resources. Moreover, the only motivation for desk rejection was that the article did not fit with the journal, with no further details given, only an attached document with a statement of the aims and scope of the journal, and since is not that obvious why it did not fit, a further motivation by the editor(s) would have been decent.
Motivation:
This journal is a best fit of my paper and the comments from reviewers are really professional and helpful to make my paper better.
Motivation:
Two referees: one was very positive and one didn't get the points. Comments were irrelevant and flawed; yet, the editor decided to follow this referee.
Motivation:
After three months after submitting my article, I sent a query to the journal to get an update on the submission. They informed they did not have an academic editor asigned to it.
I waited another month and since I got no new updates, I asked the journal again. They still had not get an editor for the paper. I am withdrawing the article after losing four precious months.
I waited another month and since I got no new updates, I asked the journal again. They still had not get an editor for the paper. I am withdrawing the article after losing four precious months.
Motivation:
I sent the paper to PLoS ONE, because the topic was something that would be interesting to a wide audience (it was about a linguistic analysis on Pokemon names). Since PLoS ONE takes pride in its fast turn-around time, after 3 month of silence, I sent an inquiry almost every month. Every time, they came back to me with a boiler plate email saying that "I guarantee that your manuscript is getting our full attention". After 7.5 months, I decided that what they are claiming is simply not true.
Motivation:
The duration of the review, reviewers selectopn and editorial decision was short. The responce of one of the reviewers was strongly incompetent.
Motivation:
The process of reviewing took too long. Therefore, we did not wait for a decision. It was difficult to track the status of the manuscript.
Motivation:
After the submission, we operatively received information about the status of the manuscript ("with editor", "awaiting reviewer selection", "under review", "awaiting reviewer decision" etc.). Generally, the process of manuscript reviewing and preparation wa and qualitative.
Motivation:
Overall review process was fair. Reviewers were also fair and asked nice questions, this helped us to improve our manuscript quality.
Please remember Scientific Reports is Nature's journal and so, the manuscript has to follow the natures formatting standards. People complained about the quality check takes time and it does, if manuscript is not properly formatted. You avoid it by submitting proper formatted manuscript in first submission only.
Please remember Scientific Reports is Nature's journal and so, the manuscript has to follow the natures formatting standards. People complained about the quality check takes time and it does, if manuscript is not properly formatted. You avoid it by submitting proper formatted manuscript in first submission only.
Motivation:
Unacceptable delay (one year) to the first review outcome having to contact the editor several times requesting information on the status of the article with low feedback. After one year quality of the reviewers´ response was also quite disappointing. For sure I will never try this journal again.
Motivation:
I had a very positive experience with Ecological Modelling. The reviews were very thorough, constructive, and received quickly. The editor seemed fair and responsive. It was <1 week from the time the paper was accepted until a fully typeset version was online. Overall- highly recommended!
Motivation:
Critical but not unfair reviews. The main comments could have been met with "major revisions"
Motivation:
CPK is a reputable journal in the field of pharmacy. The submission process was smooth. Time to obtaining the review report was long but subsequent processes (acceptance and editorial process) were really fast.
Motivation:
The process for this manuscript took slightly longer than what we've experienced earlier and expected, but all in all we have no complaints. The reviews were to the point and the communications with the editorial office were fast and smooth.
Motivation:
Overall a good experience. One troublesome reviewer with an agenda could have been tamped down a little sooner by the editor (it took two revisions for me to convince him that the reviewer was incorrect). Took 10-12 days to get an editorial decision after all of the reviews were in. Nice that the interface shows you this level of detail. Unfortunate that it took that long.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 75.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After many time without a editor (around 1 month), the paper was sent to only one reviewer that doubted about the autenticity of the results. After answer all the reviewer questions and perfomed all the experiments, the paper was rejected by the reviewer. It take almost 5 month to reject a paper.