Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewers sometimes has contradicting advice, editor handled that well. Editor gave good input for what to focus on and was very precise. Also very quick in replies, delays were due to authors' lack of time. Sometimes editor was a bit too much involved, because editor also went as far to use track changes to change certain wording in the paper (e.g. changing argue into contend)
Motivation:
Editorial processing was extremely fast. It took 3 days from submission to the assignment of associate editor, and 30 days to get the 1st round of rereview. Reviews endorsed the publication of my manuscript 8 days after a moderate revision, and in the same day, the status changed from provisional acceptance to abstract online. The user experience of the submitting system and review forum was also excellent.
Motivation:
I appreciated that the rejection was quick.
Motivation:
Reviews were mixed. One was fine, the other
Motivation:
We submitted a presubmission inquiry and were asked to submit the full manuscript. Despite this it was rejected without external review.
Motivation:
Took too long for a decision of 'immediate' rejection.
Motivation:
Though the review was a thorough process, I was satisfied with the final accepted manuscript which increased my audience in the international research network.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 1.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 2 rounds of R&R, 5 reviewers, and more than 1.5 years, the article was rejected because one reviewer brought up new critical issues (that s/he had ignored at the previous round) and the other required further revisions. The editor changed his position from "I agree with the sentiment of most reviewers that this has the potential to be a very important paper" to "the prospects of getting the manuscript published at JOP are exceedingly slim" in one round of revisions (and about 6 months). That was a giant waste of time and energy.
Motivation:
Reviewers had good comments
Motivation:
The journal switched associate editors after my initial submission, and I honestly think my manuscript got lost in the process. After I pestered, there was a flurry of activity and reviewers were assigned. Six months later I pestered again, then another flurry of activity and reviews were submitted. Same story for the revised submission.
Motivation:
After 2.5 months of review I had to email the journal to enquire about the status after which we received an apology about the delay and a response saying the AE in-charge had been reminded. Within a few days we received the rejection with a single review. After 11 weeks. The reviewer was seeking clarification on analysis methods and was a little unconvinced by our cohort selection. I suspect the AE responsible for our M/S went to sleep on the job and in a squeeze recommended rejection on the basis of the only review he had scrounged up. Poor performance overall.
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.