Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Good service 👍
Motivation:
O nosso artigo retornou duas vezes para correções relacionadas ao conteúdo e erros nossos na formatação. Da data de envio, submissão, aceite e retornos com correções, levou umas 4 semanas. Recomendo a publicação de vocês neste periódico.
Our article was returned twice for corrections related to the content and our formatting errors. From the date of sending, submission, acceptance and returns with corrections, it took about 4 weeks. I recommend your publication in this journal.
Nuestro artículo fue devuelto dos veces por correcciones relacionadas con el contenido y nuestros errores de formato. Desde la fecha de envío, envío, aceptación y devolución con correcciones, pasaron unas 4 semanas. Recomiendo su publicación en esta revista.
Our article was returned twice for corrections related to the content and our formatting errors. From the date of sending, submission, acceptance and returns with corrections, it took about 4 weeks. I recommend your publication in this journal.
Nuestro artículo fue devuelto dos veces por correcciones relacionadas con el contenido y nuestros errores de formato. Desde la fecha de envío, envío, aceptación y devolución con correcciones, pasaron unas 4 semanas. Recomiendo su publicación en esta revista.
Motivation:
I would like to make a short digression before telling my history. I decided to submit a paper to this journal because I was invited to review a manuscript to that journal. It was a good paper, the editor gave me 45 days to submit my report (that was a fair time) and I recommend acceptance. From the submission to online publication, the entire process took around four months.
My experience can be summarised as follows: The review process was a real nightmare and felt myself disrespected, as an author, by the way things took during the revision process.
I submitted my paper on November 01, 2022. It remained stopped for months, despite several messages I sent to the journal asking for information. I wrote to the system's manager (SM) and also to the editor. The SM usually took long time to reply to me and I always received vague answers. The editor has never answered to me, although the system (any message I wrote was throughout the editorial system) allowed me to choose the editor as the recipient of my message.
Only in August 2022 the paper was sent to review, after 10 months since the submission! After four months (December 2023) I wrote to the editor, asking again for news from my paper and saying that I had submitted my paper more than one year before. On the same day I received a final decision on the manuscript (acceptance), that leads me to wonder the following: if I had not written to the editor, my paper would still continue without any decision. This is a disrespectful treatment to authors and I do not plan to submit any paper to the journal at all.
My experience can be summarised as follows: The review process was a real nightmare and felt myself disrespected, as an author, by the way things took during the revision process.
I submitted my paper on November 01, 2022. It remained stopped for months, despite several messages I sent to the journal asking for information. I wrote to the system's manager (SM) and also to the editor. The SM usually took long time to reply to me and I always received vague answers. The editor has never answered to me, although the system (any message I wrote was throughout the editorial system) allowed me to choose the editor as the recipient of my message.
Only in August 2022 the paper was sent to review, after 10 months since the submission! After four months (December 2023) I wrote to the editor, asking again for news from my paper and saying that I had submitted my paper more than one year before. On the same day I received a final decision on the manuscript (acceptance), that leads me to wonder the following: if I had not written to the editor, my paper would still continue without any decision. This is a disrespectful treatment to authors and I do not plan to submit any paper to the journal at all.
Motivation:
The paper went through two rounds of reviewers, with all 7 (in total) reviewers satisfied, apart from a single exception. This reviewer kept making increasingly unreasonable requests and, even when those were satisfied, they were still not satisfied. The editor then chose to follow this single reviewer's decision and reject the paper, ignoring the opinion of all other reviewers. This process took 13 months in total. It would have been better if the editor had rejected the paper after the first round of reviews.
Motivation:
It appears that this was "out of scope", nothing much to argue with that, and we can move on to a different journal. However, before they could desk reject us, they insisted on using the journal template to the letter, which is an utter waste of time.
Motivation:
One of the reviewer's was completely incompetent to review this manuscript. Their comments indicated that they had no subject knowledge nor understanding of basic concepts addressed in the manuscript. The reviewer also made baseless comments about e.g. quality of the English. Such a poor quality review (the other review was positive) should not have been the basis of a rejection, especially after a revision that thoroughly and politely responded to every review comment.
Motivation:
The editor rejected the manuscript say that mix methods was not fit for the journal. However, the scope covers this design
Motivation:
Desk reject taking 1 month is way too long. Would not submit there again unless I have a previous ok from a handling editor already.
Motivation:
Even though the outcome was disappointing, I appreciated the fast decision time and a nicely written notification email from the editor.
Motivation:
The journal took about 10 weeks to reject my paper without even send it to the reviewers.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 287.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The manuscript was exceptionally long (over 100 manuscript pages). That was understandably challenging to evaluate. However, I would appreciate it if the journal implemented strategies to manage the time for evaluating manuscripts as it took 8 months from submission to first decision and 10 months from submission of 1st revision to 2nd decision.
Motivation:
Finding suitable reviewers might be challenging, yes, but the editor did not seem to invest many time in handling manuscripts for the journal regularly. Though communication was good, and after pointing to the lengthy review process, progress was made rather quickly.
Motivation:
It seems that once you have submitted an article to one of the Nature journals and they have made a recommendation for a specific journal, your chances of submitting to another journal of your choice approach zero
Motivation:
The reviewer's found issues with coming to terms or grasping the very theoretical concept that formed the initial foundation of the study. While this raises potential issues in the writing itself, it also questions the appropriateness of the chosen reviewers in that they were perhaps inadequate to consider the study at-hand.
Motivation:
I have published over a dozen peer-reviewed papers in top journals from several disciplines, and I have never encountered such a disorganized review process. The main culprit is the Editor, who let our paper sit without reviewers for four months despite my reminders. In the end, he did invite reviewers, but only one reviewer accepted the invitation to review. Then, I sent him a list of ten suggested reviewers. Instead of inviting them, the Editor just rejected the manuscript on the sole basis of one, largely incompetent review.
What a mess, and a huge waste of time. I suggest staying far away from this journal as long as the current editorial team stays in place.
What a mess, and a huge waste of time. I suggest staying far away from this journal as long as the current editorial team stays in place.
Motivation:
They suggested a transfer to AIP Advances. The lack of specifics with only "does not meet the standards for publication..." is disappointing.
Motivation:
The first review round took more than 8 months and then another 3 months for the second review round. From the first 4 reviewers we have only got feedback from 1 reviewer and the manuscript was rejected based on this only review.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 210.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Submitted manuscript on 26th April 2023. Heard that the manuscript was under review in June 2023 after emailing the team. Only one review was completed till 26th Nov 2023 and emails weren't answered at all. No timelines were provided to complete the review. Manuscript was withdrawn in November.
Motivation:
The editor mentioned that it might be more suitable for another journal with more focused aim.
Motivation:
submission to revision process is very long
Acceptance to publication takes more than one month
The procedure is very slow in this journal
Acceptance to publication takes more than one month
The procedure is very slow in this journal
Motivation:
One of the two review reports received recommended the rejection of the manuscript. This review report was intentionally and unnecessarily long and contained a different point for any small thing that the reviewer deemed imprecise or missing. Most of the comments were not actually relevant to the work and some were clearly in contradiction to the manuscript's contents. Nonetheless, the editor decided to reject the manuscript based on this highly problematic review only.
Motivation:
Long interval from first submission to the decision (>3 months). Associate editor provided a short note stating that reviewer's ratings for the priority of the work in combination with several major issues was the reason for rejection. However, 2 out of the 3 reviewers stated that the work was interesting/novel and the third reviewer did not dispute its merit. Comments were easily addressable and none of them pointed to a major methodological flaw or lack of scientific validity. Overall a disappointing process and outcome.
Motivation:
An absolute waste of time. A very long process that led to nothing but my proposed approach becoming obsolete. One of the reviewers asked to compare my proposed method with a Deep Learning approach, whereas not only that target approach was irrelevant but also I could not have access to the required hardware. Indeed I clarified that one major advantage of the proposed method was its computational simplicity and tested it against some of the state-of-the-art relevant methods. It took the associate editor 10 month to only be able to have one review from one reviewer that asked for additional comparison. But based on that single review my manuscript was rejected. Poor experience.
Motivation:
Two of the reviews were not competent, and the reviewers did not know the literature nor understand what a research note was, or seem to have much understanding of survey research. The third supported publication.
The pool of competent academics and reviewers in Australia in public administration may be shallow so the editors may have been stuck with the poor reviewers, but the editors should have probably discounted the two reviewers. The editorial team is a new one. Mid range journals perhaps need articles that will be cited, if only to increase their impact factors, and perhaps move outside their provincial focus, particularly in regional environments.
The pool of competent academics and reviewers in Australia in public administration may be shallow so the editors may have been stuck with the poor reviewers, but the editors should have probably discounted the two reviewers. The editorial team is a new one. Mid range journals perhaps need articles that will be cited, if only to increase their impact factors, and perhaps move outside their provincial focus, particularly in regional environments.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was productive and up to standard. The second round of reviews was a failure in all respects. Only a single reviewer provided a report and in that report 4 comments were included, three of which had to do with very minor typos/editorial changes. There was a single comment requesting similar changes to what was already done after the first round of reviews. The Associate Editor then took the decision to reject the paper based on this single (not very critical) review.
Motivation:
Reviews were professionally written and constructive. The main issue I faced was significant delays: it took almost 2 months for the editor to send the paper out to reviewers and another 6 months to receive a decision.
Motivation:
3 review reports were received. Major revision for 2, reject for 1. Finally the journal gave a 'revise and resubmission'. So although, the paper was 'rejected', we were encouraged to resubmit, which we ultimately did.
Motivation:
While there was no constructive feedback provided, I'd sooner receive the rejection decision early at editorial level and avoid the possibility of months under peer review before finally reaching a decision.
Motivation:
took too long to get desk rejection. They said it was because they were busy.
Motivation:
quick rejection
Motivation:
2 months for a desk reject is unacceptably long, a career killer for junior scholars.
Motivation:
It was a quick and friendly desk reject.