Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Three reviewers gave us helpful comments. Though some of them were reasons for rejections, the decision was very transparent.
Motivation:
Very quick internal review by one of the editors, who gave us clear understandable reason to not proceed. Unfortunate but satisfied.
Motivation:
The overall handling of manuscript was good, however I didn't like the manuscript tracking in nature communication witch offers much less information about manuscript status then is common in other journals.
Motivation:
Reviews issued by not expert referees.
Motivation:
Complaining about ms being a case study of single species.
Motivation:
Complaining about ms being a case study of single species
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent out for review very quickly. Final decision by the editor took rather long in comparison once the reviews were in.
Motivation:
The editor should have sent out the paper for review as a similar paper had been published in PNAS last year and we had much better results than the method.
Motivation:
I have nothing bad to say about this journal in my experience. This is the most professional contact I've ever had with a journal, and the fasted turnaround. The time from submission to (advanced online) publication was 4 months!
Motivation:
The response time was very good.
However, reviewers' comments were incorrect (either scientifically or in the context of the manuscript).
However, reviewers' comments were incorrect (either scientifically or in the context of the manuscript).
Motivation:
The review took very long time for first decision.
Motivation:
The editor wrote that the manuscriot was not appropiate for the journal readership even if I cited a lot of papers from the journal of the same topic.
Motivation:
There was a large number of received submissions
Motivation:
The reviewers do not give important guidelines, they just wrote that the novelty was not important.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was very slow.
Motivation:
First round of the review process took a bit long but overall the reviewers provided constructive and helpful feedback.
Motivation:
Very tough comments from 4 reviewers.
The best experience I ever had with a journal's editorial staff!
Excellent final editing. They replicated all my analyses!
The best experience I ever had with a journal's editorial staff!
Excellent final editing. They replicated all my analyses!
Motivation:
I don't think that somebody actually read our manuscript before rejecting it as we received a manuscript number (which usually means that an editor was assigned) just 2 minutes before the rejection. In addition, 3 weeks for an immediate rejection is simply too long.
Motivation:
The reviews were good. There were only some editorial suggestions.
Motivation:
Review from an economist who admitted s/he was not familiar with the philosophical issues. His/her only real substantive complaint boiled down to my paper not looking 'formal enough'. Review was full of misunderstandings about the philosophical motivation of my project (in fact, the reviewer at one point claimed my thesis was 'p', when it in fact was 'not p'). I really don't know why an editor would take such a review seriously. I won't be submitting to this journal for a long time.