Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I was positively surprised how quickly I received the responses: the editorial team seem very efficient. Going through a second round of revise & resubmit is always daunting, but the reviewers have been excellent and helped me to make the most out of the data that I had.
Motivation:
Very slow editorial decision making and review times for a journal that asks reviewers to send reports in 10 days. After acceptance, multiple back-and-forth changes about text also took considerable amount of time as did final online publication of the paper. In the end, positive outcome in good quality and rigorous journal but be prepared for the editorial process to take much longer than e.g. Cell Press journals.
Motivation:
Quick but rigor process. Really great reviewer with lots of useful and positive (also sometimes over-critical) remarks. Fast process. Minor remark: Decision to send paper out to external review was not shared with us.
Motivation:
In addition to the external reviewers, we also received helpful comments from the Associate Editor and the Editor (I did not count them as reviewers). I have submitted to this journal in the past and the turnaround time and quality of reviews have greatly improved in the last decade.
Motivation:
Short review cycle, good quality reviews, editorial staff respond to emails quickly
Motivation:
The quality of review reports was OK, but it took a very long time to receive the reviews.
Motivation:
High quality review reports but the review cycle is long.
Motivation:
Very short review reports only commenting on minor issues.
Motivation:
After almost four months of the status being "Editor Assignment Pending", we have contacted the editorial office. The answer basically boiled down to "wait a bit more". So we did. After a few more of weeks of the status remaining unchanged and us not hearing from them, we finally sent an email requesting the manuscript to be removed from their system.
Then we waited for another week or two to see the paper actually removed from the system. Which did not happen: the manuscript remained in the the system with the same status.
Eventually, we decided to ignore them and submitted it to another journal.
Checked the system these days (about a month and a half later), because the paper is about to be accepted for publication in this new journal, and found that the manuscript is still in their system with the same "Editor Assignment Pending" status.
As a colleague of ours had an identical experience, we suspect that this is not an outlier.
Almost amusing.
Then we waited for another week or two to see the paper actually removed from the system. Which did not happen: the manuscript remained in the the system with the same status.
Eventually, we decided to ignore them and submitted it to another journal.
Checked the system these days (about a month and a half later), because the paper is about to be accepted for publication in this new journal, and found that the manuscript is still in their system with the same "Editor Assignment Pending" status.
As a colleague of ours had an identical experience, we suspect that this is not an outlier.
Almost amusing.
Motivation:
Editorial rejection took too long (about two months).
Motivation:
Central European Geology is fair in publishing anything of scientific value based on local geology, if it is worth the attention of other geologists.
Motivation:
The reviews highlighted some blind spots in my argumentation, and also showed that some of the examples were distracting from the main point and could be cut.
Motivation:
Can't recommend this journal at all. Would never submit again.
Motivation:
The paper was "transferred" from Nature Communications - but this is bogus because it was not transferred at all. Scientific Reports is not tied in to other NPG accounts and required a new upload of all documents plus adding in all the information regarding funding and co-authors (this should have been transferred directly from Nat Comm). The paper was then delayed in being accepted for review due to some minor copy editing issues, and then further delayed because one author was deceased and had no valid email address. The first round of reviews were slow and only asked for minor changes in content. In the second round of reviews, the paper was not accepted because revision was needed to change the title and one figure legend sentence. In any other journal, this would be an "accept" with very minor modifications decision. The final version was followed by an unnecessary "unsubmitting" action at Scientific Reports with no instructions given as to what the issue was. Paper was resubmitted as it was and accepted. The whole process with this journal was exceptionally tedious and aggravating. Our entire team was quite distressed at the length of time needed for the reviews and the silliness in unsubmitting the paper continually. Staff at Sci Rep were apologetic but there seems to be no effort on the part of Scientific Reports to bring the journal up to other NPG journal standards.
Motivation:
We sent in a paper and we got it back after one round of revision with fairly minor comments. We addressed the comments and resubmitted thinking it was going to be accepted fast.
To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.
Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.
Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
Motivation:
The editor agreed "with both reviewers that [what we pointed out] only hold for this paper but for many more" but stated that "It seems unfair to specifically target this issue for this paper". When we proposed to write a more general letter to the Editor addressing this common error, the Editor dismissed it as falling "beyond the scope of Appetite". I believe this shows lack of interest for the integrity of the Scientific Method.
Motivation:
The review process was rapid, and the ACS journals do a good job in this regard. However, the Editor has way more power than is ideal. In our case, one of the Reviewers suggested to publish as is and the other, to publish in a different journal. The Editor gave us an option to resubmit within 180 days after answering the second Reviewer's queries, but somehow decided to reject for now.
Motivation:
The handeling of paper was very fast they took only 14 days for the first round
And after resubmission i got the acceptance after 4 hours.
It is a great journal
And after resubmission i got the acceptance after 4 hours.
It is a great journal
Motivation:
The journal indicates that it is interested in Molluscan physiological papers, but the reasons given for manuscript rejection suggest that the focus is behavioral and ecology. This manuscript was rejected due to the lack of “relevance to field conditions” and “behavior in the field.” Although, I enjoy reading this journal, I would caution physiologist about submitting their manuscripts. On the other hand, behavioral scientist and ecologist would likely benefit from the very fast response times.
Motivation:
The editor was actively involved in the review process. The review comments were helpful for the most part. The editor also carefully considered both the author and reviewers responses. The entire process was relatively quick and straightforward.
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
Motivation:
Waiting 41 days to hear that the manuscript did not even pass the first evaluation is shocking. I can accept that the editor feels the manuscript was out of the scope, but if that's the case, surely this can be detected in less than 41 days. This is an unacceptable waste of time for the authors and for the scientific community.
Motivation:
Desk rejects are always disappointing, but they provided a paragraph to state the reasons and suggested which kind of journals they think are more suited.