Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It seems that the manuscript needs improved clarity as the editor and reviewers were confused about some fundamental aspects of the methods and results. Furthermore, an editor misinterpreted a figure and drew false conclusions about inconsistency in our data. As for the two reviewer reports, one reviewer recommended acceptance after minor revision, and another reviewer recommended more robust revisions which were all doable. Some of the revisions this reviewer categorized as "major" were actually editorial remarks about how to structure the order of paragraphs. Neither of the reviewers outright suggested rejection in their comments. At least all the comments were thorough and justified from the editors' and reviewers' points of view. Also the decision was a relatively quick turnaround.
Motivation:
The revision were good and helpful. The revision process was too fast.
Motivation:
First review round needed 6.4 weeks. This is not so short but I expected longer time would be required for this round. The comments from reviewers are good and contribute to improve my manuscript. Second review round needed 2 weeks and this is acceptable. New submission system they introduced is helpful. Some information of the reviewing progress can be obtained from the system.
Motivation:
The editor provided great insights into our manuscript to make it stronger. The submission process is smooth and swift.
Motivation:
The review process was very good
Motivation:
While the initial reviewer suggestions appeared reasonable and eventually improved the manuscript, the process in it's entirety was convoluted and unnecessarily taxing. To elucidate, there was a new editor introduced for each round of revisions (therefore, no revision was dealt with by the previous or same editor). Perhaps most glaringly, the third editor (handling the second revision) introduced a new reviewer as well as suggested changes of their own, which they did not come to evaluate themselves following the third revision.
Motivation:
The time the whole process took was reasonable, the editor was polite and informative.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.
Motivation:
Applied energy journal publish papers from authors they know personally, basically it's favoritism, not a scientific evaluation by editorial board
Motivation:
My paper was rejected after a poor review. Reviewer comments appeared to be created with ChatGPT. I inquired the editorial office about the quality of the reviews and my emails got ignored.
Motivation:
Review was not blind, and comments were extremely rude and derogatory.
Motivation:
Média de dois até a publicação.
Motivation:
The review process took way too long and the reviewers' suggestions did not improve the paper substantially.
Motivation:
The submission to PLOS One was just so staggeringly bad it was hard to believe. After 6 months from submission I withdrew the article - in that time it had been handled by 4 different editors, got 'stuck' in the initial review stage, and was not passed over to another editor when one left. The email communication I had with one of the journal staff was incredible, very cold and dismissive. Simply this was the worst experience with any journal in 25 years. My final exchange with the last editor finished with him says 'Yeah, I agree this is terrible'.
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Any academic masochist out there - submit to PLOS One. You'll get humiliated and degraded, and you'll end up paying for it!!
Motivation:
After submission, absolutely nothing happened for a while: there was no status change in the system at all indicating that the manuscript was with the editors or still just submitted. I also noticed there was a change in the editors in the meanwhile and quite frankly I have the impression that the manuscript was simply forgotten. Due to the language and the phenomenon I investigated, the editors should have taken time to find adequate reviewers. Rather than doing so, I all of a sudden got desk rejection with completely ridiculous "arguments" that only revealed that the editor(s) did not read the entire manuscript. Had the editors identified substantial issues concerning the amnuscript, the situation would be different, but wondering about very basic notions of linguistics was completely unexpected.
Motivation:
A rather generic message was given: 'Unfortunately, after an initial screening, we did not find it suitable for BITE, thus regretfully will not be able to consider for publication'
And some extra information.
And some extra information.
Motivation:
First round of peer review took over 2 months.
Motivation:
Only very generic comments were provided, which did not justify their decisions, fair to authors or help academic theories to advance.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
Motivation:
I am writing to express my satisfaction with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. The journal's editors and reviewers were prompt and thorough in their handling of my manuscript, and their feedback was helpful and constructive. I appreciate the time and effort that they put into ensuring that the quality of the journal is maintained.
The review process was timely and efficient.
Overall, I had a positive experience with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. I would highly recommend this journal to other researchers.
The review process was timely and efficient.
Overall, I had a positive experience with the review process of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. I would highly recommend this journal to other researchers.
Motivation:
4.11 submitted / 5.11 received review comments / 5.15 resubmitted revised manuscript / 5.17 accepted — two reviewer direct accept (guess) / one minor revision
Motivation:
Not very friendly, but fast
Motivation:
Received a very friendly letter, showing the editor had taken a good look at the manuscript.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
Recommended transfer to Nature Communications.
Motivation:
After the second revision we did not obtain response from reviewer 1 and 2 (probably they accepted?); reviewer 2 was changed and rejected the manuscript with no reason
Motivation:
No reasons were given for a desk-rejection. They did not even provide any comments for improvement or on scope fitness. This is unfair, and unconstructive for knowledge advancement. They should learn respecting other authors.
Motivation:
The editor said only one reviewer accepted the invitation. The reviewer said my manuscript was interesting and only left a few minor comments about wording, while the editor still rejected my manuscript without any justification. Very disappointed.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted March 15th 2022.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
July 4th 2022 the status was 'Editor Assignment Pending'.
July 12th 2022, I was notified that the manuscript had not been sent out for review because it was in the queue. Within a couple of weeks the status of the article changed to being 'under review'.
February 20th 2023 I asked about the progress of the review and I was told the manuscript was with 'the subject experts'
April 5th 2023 I was notified the manuscript had been reviewed. However, the reviewer comments were not in the email nor on editorial manager. Upon request, I received a pre-formatted email with no helpful information.
April 26th 2023 I tried contacting the editor of the journal using the email from his home institution. Two weeks later there has been no response. My co-author tried to call on the phone, still no response.
I wasted over a year dealing with this journal and I have not been able to review the manuscript because I have never seen the reviewer comments and no one seems to care.
Motivation:
The paper was decided to be "not competitive enough for the limited space". We received two nonconstructive reviews that seemed put together last minute. I was very surprised on the low quality review from a journal like Science. One review said that we didn't provide evidence for a competing theory in the field, the second asked us to repeat data from 3 previous manuscripts from our lab, suggesting a thorough review process was not done.