Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very responsive. Submission system is well implemented. Editing was very fast.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
Motivation:
To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!
Motivation:
The one reviewer comments were on an ad hoc basis. The editor and reviewer failed to provide a convincing reason to reject. No comments on the scientific merit of the paper. I will not even bother to submit a rebuttal because I know it will take more time.
Motivation:
The reivewers' comments sound as if there have been a few misunderstandings regarding the method used (fixed effects rather than OLS). Essentially the reviewers seem to be recommending to use the same method as we already did but obviously did not understand FE. For this reason, we were wondering if these methodological misunderstandings were a decisive factor in the negative editorial decision on our manuscript and if so, whether the editorial team would consider consulting another reviewer. However, the editorial team - unfortunatenly - declined to consider another reviewer.
Motivation:
Extremely helpful and proactive editor
Motivation:
One of the referees showed that they did not understand how things work in nonlinear quantum optics and requested a type of analysis that had already been shown to not work in my manuscript. They noted that some of the results were remarkable, but even so should have been culled from the manuscript.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
The other made demands that have never been made on any published quantum optics paper, seemingly not realising that a cavity chooses the modes of interest and only these need to be analysed. Their demand breaks with decades of practice. Even so, this referee recognised that all the PRL criteria except that of broad interest were satisfied.
The criterion of broad interest is, in general, interpreted very badly by referees. I suspect they confuse broad interest with their own interests. Looking at what actually gets published, it is impossible to form a clear picture of what this broad interest is.
Motivation:
Very fast review process of about 2 months for each revision round. Nevertheless, after conditional acceptance 2 new reviewers assigned, who came up with some additional thoughts
Motivation:
This wasn't the quickest review, and then we got two reviews, one of whom only gave the paper a cursory look ("I'm not convinced" without giving reasons), the other of which asked for a few technical clarifications. The editor did not mention how this translates into a rejection.
Motivation:
Before the submission of my paper to ADNDT, just one week I have received rejection. The editor told me that using of publicly available computer codes do not meet the journal criteria. Despite, I checked many published papers in the same time have the same codes which I used.
Motivation:
After I received the first review (minor revisions), I contacted the editor to ask whether it was possible to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection in the next round in less than a month time: I asked if, if I submit on July, 24, can I get a decision by half August? To my surprise, they answered yes. Finally, I resubmitted the revision on July, 13 and got an acceptance on July, 17. I really feel they stepped up the second round because of my request, which is excellent service. The faster timing will allow me to submit my PhD thesis on the date agreed with my supervisor, a target which I had already virtually given up.
Motivation:
The initial review process took very long. One of the reviewer has seemingly ignored the paper for several weeks. The paper was eventually accepted.
Motivation:
The time under review was quite long, but given the number and quality of reviews we received in the first round, the wait was justifiable.
Motivation:
I felt that one of the reviewers has not even read the whole manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers had thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of my manuscript.
Motivation:
Rejection because of (few) critics from one reviewer, although the other reviewer suggested acceptance (with only minor changes). 2 months and half for rejection is too long and an annoying loss of time.
4.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewers gave useful comments. Reviews were obtained after two months which is pretty fast compared to other journals.
Motivation:
After submission of the first revision, the editor was unavailable. Plos ONE did not find a new editor for about one year. So we decided to withdraw our manuscript and submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
Motivation:
Very fast and nice review system. Easy and uncomplicated submission system.
Motivation:
Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent and the editor was very responsive and timely. The reviewers really helped in making the paper better. The one drawback is that one of the reviewers took a long time to respond, which delayed the process.