All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: It was fast but lacks relevant contributions

Motivation: The editor in chief informed me that he turns down ~70% of submissions without peer review (after he reads them), and that my paper was not a tight enough fit for their primary audience of biodiversity scientists. I hoped it could work based on a few other papers similar to me published in the journal, but of course I respect the prerogative of the editor and appreciated the fast rejection.

Motivation: Manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process.

Motivation: My only complaint is the long time in review, much worse than other ACS journals in my experience.

Motivation: 7 months waiting to receive one 150 word and one 225 word review, followed by 3 months for an editorial decision which only came after extended chasing up with the publisher.

Motivation: The timing for the review process and the quality of the review itself exceeded all expectations.

Motivation: The second round of reviews was made because one of the reviewers never answered to our reviewed paper. We pointed out from the beginning that this reviewer had a potential conflict of interest because he pointed out as an argument against the publication of our paper a preprint that was clearly overlapping. The reaction of the editor was very slow (note the number of weeks of the second round), and we wrote several times to the editor asking for explanations on the delayed answer. Finally, he recognized that the referee was no answering and he decided to sent the manuscript to another referee, with the subsequent delay. But the worst thing is that, after this long process, our paper was finally published in the same number that the preprint that the referee that never answered was referring to. You can extract your own conclusions about the opacity of this process.
Furthermore, after acceptance, the paper took four rounds of proofreadings because most of the equations had errors (that our manuscript didn't have). Given the prize of the journal this is absolutely unacceptable, and we still have no complete confidence in that the paper is 100% free of errors after all this process.

Motivation: Manuscript was significantly improved due to suggestions from reviewers and Editor. I was thankful to receive such high-quality suggestions. However, the entire manuscript handling process takes too long! For each round the manuscript is sent out for review, I waited for approximately 2-2.5 months to hear back from Editor (manuscript was sent to reviewers twice). After acceptance notice, I waited 6 weeks to finally see manuscript in online print (returned comments on proofs within 3 days). For the ~5500EUR publication fee, I would expect swifter turn around.

Motivation: The reviewers comments were helpful in some ways. However there was a worrying lack of statistical knowledge (the request I used of mean and standard deviation when the data was not normally distributed) which is concerning.

Motivation: Extremely fast rejection process. This was great, we did not think they would accept our paper since the research area is very narrow, but still wanted to try and were thankful for their quick reply which made it possible for us to send it to another journal already the week after.