Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast Review.
Rejection by editor took 4-7 days sometime short
If reviewed decisions will be given in 20-30 days
Rejection by editor took 4-7 days sometime short
If reviewed decisions will be given in 20-30 days
Motivation:
Journal of Material Chemistry A has quick response good manuscript tracking system and professional reviewer. In mots of the cases if they review the manuscript the will give you decision within 20-30 days. If the editor rejects the manuscript it may take 4-7 days.
Motivation:
Fast and polite handling of submission, no online submission system exists.
Motivation:
The decision was not in line wth the reviewers comments. The reviewers seemed to suggest some revisions but seemed interested. The journal rejected citing "quality of the manuscript, its appropriateness for the journal, and its level of interest to our general readership" and suggested transfer to a sister journal Open Forum for Infectious Diseases
Motivation:
The third reviewer was not objective. Journal has one round revision policy so after the reviewer raised not feasible issues/experiments after resubmission, we do not have an possibility to react.
Motivation:
Exorbitant submission fee, no replies to inquiries, article reviewed by associate editor and editorial report justifying rejection was superficial and useless despite retaining the article for more than 10 months.
Motivation:
Only after several reminders did the journal realise that their handling editor had resigned. The new editor provided no comments to the final decision, even though the reviews were mixed. One of the reviews was insightful and provided valuable comments, the other reviewer had critique that was not really relevant to the paper.
Motivation:
One month to say: "The Journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article’s perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted."
Motivation:
Process a bit long, apparently due to reviewer mobilization. Manuscript initially submitted to the journal three months before, and proposal was made by the editor to perform some experiments before sending it to review. Good contact with the editor though.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
Motivation:
We experienced serious delays and issues during the review process, raising serious concerns about the reliability and overall quality of the journal.
The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".
After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.
After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".
After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.
After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
Motivation:
There was a long wait just for one reviewer to look over the revisions. Many emails had to be sent to the editorial office in order to get status updates.
Motivation:
The review process was okay, but after acceptance something went wrong technically with the Elsevier system, and the last version of my article was lost in cyberspace. It took me many phonecalls (to India) and e-mails with the publisher's office to set it straight.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were good and relevant, but no clear reason was given for the rejection, as the shortcomings mentioned would have been easy to fix.
Motivation:
The rejection by editor was extremel fast and the rejection letter was nice - the editor commented that the manuscript is well prepared and interesting, but probably too niche for the wide readership of ACS Nano.
Motivation:
The process was satisfactory in practically all ways; our only major issue with the ACS system is that it is quite prone to browser errors and after the manuscript has been submitted, the only status visible is "Submitted to Editorial Office" independent of whether it is being assessed by the editor or the reviewers.
Motivation:
JMIR offers a rigorous, efficient and fair review process. The quality of the comments and criticisms from both reviewers was excellent. The reviewers offered constructive feedback, which helped us to improve the paper.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not read the paper properly and their comments were too general. One reviewer could not open a figure due to technical problems but instead of asking the editorial office he adressed this issue as one reason to reject the manuscript. The other reviewer could not find the task description in the figure legends. I prefer a desk reject instead of waiting two months for such unprofessional comments.
Motivation:
Editor copy/pasted a line from summary in conciliatory decision letter. Suggested we publish in Nature Communications (which has $6K article processing fee).
Motivation:
Professional handling of manuscript, all questions were answered soon.
Motivation:
I did not hear back from the journal for over a month after the initial submission, so I wrote to find out if it was being sent to review or not. They informed me that it had been sent out for review, but it would have been nice if they would have told me that instead of having to seek out that information. Then it took over 4 months to receive the outcome of the first review, which I find excessive. The worst though is that since it was accepted I waited over 2 months for a first proof, which was full of errors, I requested a second proof be sent, which took 3 weeks and was again full of errors, some of which were the same as the previous proof... it is still yet to be published almost 4 months after accepting it and will now be pushed back to the May issue (6 months from accepted date).
Motivation:
I appreciated getting thoughtful feedback from four reviewers.