Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.
Motivation:
Overall, reviews weren't very negative but manuscript was still rejected. Comparably fast process though.
Motivation:
Fast and precise revisions, and rapid handling by the Editorial team
Motivation:
I do not understand why the Editors send the papers to reviewers if they think that an article does not have anyway enough priority for the journal, waisting Authors and Reviewers time.
Motivation:
Decision time for immediate rejection was really short wherefore one cannot expect more than a stereotypical rejection letter.
Motivation:
Manuscript was desk rejected with zero indication given that they had actually bothered to read it. They unhelpfully suggested to resubmit to journals specialising in fields that have little to do with our work. A waste of our time, in other words.
Motivation:
It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
Motivation:
Very quick response, encouraging us to pursue a more fitting journal for our paper
Motivation:
The process was quick, the reviewers were focused and their remarks contributed to the paper.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
The communication with the editor was very swift and pleasant.
Motivation:
Rejection without review in Nature is now shame. However, after 10 days of editorial evaluation I would appreciate at least a brief comment on my manuscript.
Motivation:
Although the reason for rejection was not entirely accurate, the fast time to first decision is good
Motivation:
Fast rejection time for case reports
Motivation:
Reasonably fast review process.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.
Reasonable comments by reviewer.
Motivation:
Reasonably fast rejection time without peer reviewing, thus minimizing the lost time before submitting to another journal.
Motivation:
It took 2 months for the editors to find reviewers willing to review the paper.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
While the report of the first reviewer was detailed with many suggestions, the report of the second reviewer was very short and dismissive.
3 months of waiting is a considerable amount of time only to have the paper rejected.
Motivation:
Very fast time to rejection of the case report submitted
Motivation:
Very fast review process (comments from reviewers and first decision after about just 1 month)
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was eventually accepted, the revision process took too long. I understand the topic was new, but it took them a month to accept my revised manuscript despite the fact that the revisions were very minor.
Motivation:
This was a quick and high-quality peer-review process.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were extremely helpful although it took them more than ten days to accept the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
One reviewer (out of three) has apparently not read the manuscript. Other reviewer reports were somewhat helpful.
Motivation:
Fast rejection, no reason given.
Motivation:
The review process took a long time relative to other journals of similar quality. At each stage the manuscript had to pass through a quality check that significantly delayed the review process and required all or most of the files to be uploaded again.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
In my opinion, the review process took too long. After almost four months of "under review" status, I contacted the editor asking what was going on. The reviews were sent to me about a week after my query, so it seems it was necessary to ask the editor to urge the reviewers. Received reviews were very accurate and it was clear the reviewers read and reviewed the manuscript carefully. The publishing process after acceptance was quick and well managed.