Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor took several weeks on their part and then did not write any comments of their own. The reviews were short, but reasonable. Even with a positive, neutral, and somewhat negative review, the submission was rejected without comment.
Motivation:
The reviewing process takes a long time.
Motivation:
Based on my experiences in submitting and receiving review results from this journal, I think the editor of "Technology Analysis&Strategic Management" has a very low level of self-determination whether to push further process for a manuscript or not. After the first round of review, I received two review reports from peer reviewers, and then I resubmitted the revised manuscript. After the second round of review, the reviewer 1 was satisfied with the revised manuscript. However, reviewer 2 was unsatisfied with the revised manuscript and insisted that he or she thinks that the authors did not consider what he or she commented during the first round of review. That argument seems absurd to me, considering that the authors gave responses to reviewer 2 regarding comments received from reviewer 2.
In some cases(e.g. other journals), editors push through the review process based on their own judgment when a reviewer keeps acting absurd. However, editors of "Technology Analysis & strategic Management" avoid continuing the process when there are disagreements between reviewers.
In some cases(e.g. other journals), editors push through the review process based on their own judgment when a reviewer keeps acting absurd. However, editors of "Technology Analysis & strategic Management" avoid continuing the process when there are disagreements between reviewers.
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review was quick, but of very low quality. Almost all of the reviewer's concerns, questions and suggestions had already been clarified and addressed in the manuscript. It seemed like the reviewer had not read most of the article. Our response to the review was ignored.
Motivation:
The review turn around time for this journal is quite fast; however, editor should wait for at least two review reports before giving the decision on a manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers identified so-called weaknesses that were not weaknesses at all. They were easily refutable. However, the editor did not give us the chance to revise the manuscript, arguing that the weaknesses were difficult to address. It is a pity that we were not able to defend our work. I appreciate the editor for sending out the manuscript to reviewers, but I give a low score for judgment of the revisions required. The main argument against our manuscript was flawed and could be easily refuted.
Motivation:
The review process was unnecessarily long. The reviews seem overall complete and reasonable, although short. Some mentions in one of the reviews makes us suspect that it was mixed with the review of a different paper, as it discusses statements not present in our work.
Motivation:
The reviewing timeline was extensive, and peer comments were frustrating. It seemed detrimental to describe the paper as "brilliant" scientifically but disqualify it because of the sensitive issues it addresses. For a paper with no scientific issues and fitting the journal's scope, corrections requests would have seemed appropriate to smooth the political dimension.
Motivation:
Fast response, but sad outcome
Motivation:
Although our paper was rejected by the journal, the process was very efficient.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for review, but then rejected based on one review report. The process was very fast, however. One of the major comments in the report of the reviewer was that our results contrasted with existing (but different) evidence, which would take away some of the novelty. It felt like this very much contributed to the critical tone of the report and rejection thereafter, while I feel that challenging existing evidence is a crucial part of our work as scientist.
Motivation:
I took extremely long time. I had contacted the editorial office but the assistant editor keep send the copy & paste email saying "sorry for delay". So I contacted the customer service team to ask them deal with the delay. I guess if I hadn't contact them, it would have took much longer to get the first revision. The reviewers comment was helpful.
Motivation:
Took almost a month for a desk reject. Not clear whether anyone read the manuscript prior to desk rejecting.
Motivation:
a geneirc report was provided 6 months after the submission
Motivation:
The reviewers engaged seriously with the article and gave helpful, relevant reviews.
Motivation:
Two times some of reviewers, or editors or... I don't know, abandoned the process. First time, after more than 10 weeks without news, I sent an email and first reviewer left the process. Three days after, first revision was completed (?) and mansucript left pending of major changes. Second time, one... reviewer? editor? left the process. 17 weeks after sending the correction of minor changes, the manuscript was rejected.
After 40 weeks and two revisions, two reviewers agreed with the changes of the manuscript and it was rejected. Well done PLOS.
After 40 weeks and two revisions, two reviewers agreed with the changes of the manuscript and it was rejected. Well done PLOS.
Motivation:
A short paragraph explaining why the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal and some suggestions about what kind of journal might be more suitable.
Motivation:
It took less than two weeks from submission to receiving a rejection notice from the editor, which can be considered a moderate speed.
Motivation:
Due to reviewers' withdrawal and editorial changes, it took more than a year until we got the first decision. We only got one review, which had very few comments, primarily related to typos
Motivation:
The editorial board's assessment and informal consultations with experts took 3 months. Rejected without any report.
Motivation:
Quick desk reject.
Motivation:
A little too much time for a desk rejection with very vague reasons, but not dramatic.
Motivation:
The decision is fairly justified; however, taking 120 days for a desk rejection is unacceptable, especially given the reason provided. According to their website, such a decision could easily have been made within the stated median of 5 days. There was no explanation for the prolonged process, nor any meaningful response to my requests for updates during this 120-day period.
Motivation:
They required the manuscript submitted are comprehensive and authoritative, timely, well written and address major issues of importance to obesity.
Motivation:
- One single review with generalist comments like "You should do more experiments", "You should do more analysis", "There are still typos"..
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
Motivation:
The reviewers handled the paper promptly. The handling editor was too busy to deal with the submission and so the paper spent several weeks Awaiting Recommendation after each round of revision, totally almost 5 months. Usually, editorial decisions are made within a few days of receiving reviews. We asked for assistance from the editorial board. They replied to us politely but didn't speed anything up.
Motivation:
I submitted to RSC advances because I heard that peer review was fast and also heard that review process is fair.
Motivation:
1. 피드백이 다른 저널에 비해 빠르게 도착하였음
2. publish는 accept 되더라도 한 달 이상 소요됨
2. publish는 accept 되더라도 한 달 이상 소요됨
Motivation:
I found the reviewers comments insightful and constructive