Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Courteous letter explaining that the editors do not see the article as a good fit for the journal.
Motivation:
Good turnaround times. Always informed, positive and respectful tone.
Motivation:
It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
Motivation:
While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Motivation:
the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Motivation:
Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.
26.0 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very responsive.
Motivation:
The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
Motivation:
The report was useful and very detailed but it took one year