Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Really good reviews that will improve approach if revision for another journal
Motivation:
Study journal contents before submission
Motivation:
The Editorial Board and few referees did excellent work for improving the manuscript. This journal is excellent and particularly the editorial board members.
Motivation:
The decision seemed really at odds with the content of the reviews. There were some serious flaws in the paper, to be sure, but the suggestion was basically to rewrite it about a different topic, with new data that is not feasible to collect. So, it was a pretty unhelpful rejection.
Motivation:
It should be faster to consider, whether the manuscript would be of interest for journal readers. When writing an e-mail to editors directly from the submission system (asking why the manuscript is still with the editor after 4 weeks), I obtained no response.
Motivation:
Took so so long to review. Emailed editors 3 times with response of "it's out to review". When I finally got reviews, one of the two was completely worthless.
Motivation:
The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Motivation:
Reviewers did not seem very competent and reviews were useless. Waste of time.
Motivation:
Very long review process. Journal had some trouble finding reviewers. When the reviews arrived, one was of very good quality with detailed comments, whereas the other review consisted of only two sentences, and provided little information.
Motivation:
The first round of review was quite fast (7.3 weeks)
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
The manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers
We received an email from the chief editor with:
- 5 comments from reviewer n°1, telling us that the work is already done and advising to read a review, which was not at all on the topic we studied, with the presence of several typing errors in the comments.
- 2 comments from reviewer n°2
We thus think this journal has a poor quality review process. We would have prefered to be rejected on honest and rational argument.
19.9 weeks
41.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Editor was fair and balanced, reviews were of adequate quality.
Motivation:
The reviews were pretty okay, but some comments were pretty inane. Point being, now that the paper was rejected, they won't help us actually improve it to send it elsewhere.
Motivation:
The overall process was very long. Editor has not done his job. They invited originally 4 reviewers and non of them was available to revise the resubmitted version. Two new reviewers were invited and they reject the manuscript based on argument that questions from reviewer #1 were not addressed. The process was not transparent at all.
Motivation:
Short handling time, constructive reviews, an overall pleasant experience.
Motivation:
Great experience, very quick, helpful reviews. One reviewer suggested rejection, the other a r&r. The editors apparently read my submission, too, and opted for a r&r because they saw some merits, as they pointed out. I took the reviews very seriously, and almost each thing pointed out by them made the paper much better. I am very satisfied with this experience.
Motivation:
The experience with Scientific Reports was very mixed; I personally think that 10 weeks is a very long time for a first review;
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
2 reviewers gave genuinely constructive feedback, with which the manuscript was improved and published in a similarly good journal.
However, 1 reviewer gave overly destructive feedback, with no reason for rejection other than his personal opinion, which could have been proven wrong with a number of references- if the manuscript hadn't been rejected due to his comments. Furthermore things were critisized that were clearly not stated or even implyed as such in the manuscript.
The journal did not answer our email with concerns about this reviewer and references proving his statements wrong.
Motivation:
I cannot rate the review as perfect (score 5) since one of the first rerviewers was not really competent. He/she made practically only technical comments.
Motivation:
Following an internal editorial assessement it was decided that the study is limited in scope and novelty, and would be more suitable for a more specialised journal.
Motivation:
Although I was not satidfied with the quality of the internal editorial assessement I appreciate the speedy editorial handling.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with my submission process with this journal. The process was fast and the reviewers' comments showed that they were experts in the field.
Motivation:
The manuscript does not demonstrate the sort of clear conceptual advance with broader implications that would demand the attention of a wider audience of physicists