Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review quality is good enough and they suggested good suggestions for improving the manuscript.
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:
A specific problem in the Frontiers review system: At any time of the review process an (anonymous) reviewer has the right to withdraw from the process. If the reviewer does not withdraw, his or her name will be published if the manuscript gets published. The names of reviewers withdrawing will not be published.
In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
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.
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:
Very fast and encouraging review process. Reviewer comments were most helpful and educational.
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:
Five months (!!) after sending the manuscript to this journal we got it back rejected with the comment that they could not find any reviewers. Very strange, especially since the next journal we sent the same manuscript to found three reviewers within a couple of weeks...
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.
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.