Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
With referring to the editor's comment, I would like to add that we have cited at least two papers on the same exact topic and "site specific" from the same country published by this journal a year before.
Motivation:
Seven months wait for one unnecessarily mean and obnoxious review. At least the editor picked a referee who appeared somewhat competent in the subject matter. Do not send to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was surprisingly smooth, with a quick turnaround time. However, upon resubmitting the paper with major revisions, two of the three reviewers recommended immediate publication. One of the reviewers was till unhappy with the manuscript and did not have any real concrete suggestions or comments to improve the manuscript. He/She wanted us to redo some experiments that had already been published -- which involved cell cultures of 21 days, and hence the delay in the second resubmission. Other than this issue, we were satisfied with the review process.
Motivation:
The journal handled my manuscript quickly and sent it to very helpful referees.
Motivation:
Waiting for the first response was a bit long in my opinion (27.9 weeks) and there was only one reviewer. Review process after that point was very quick. Review was not very detailed (minor revision), but addressed some important points of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviews was professional, good and fair. However the editorial process is extremely slow and ineffective. First, the editorial office lost a contact with handling editor and it took them more then 2 months to re-assign the manuscript to another editor, Second, in any stage of the submission the manuscript is going through "quality check", which take at least a week. Third, the production of accepted manuscript is extremely slow as well. It took more than two weeks and additional communication with the production staff to get invoice and the proof of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Reviewer selection was poor, reviews were unconstructive and low quality, editorial input was minimal and defered to poor quality reviews.
Motivation:
Overall, the G3 review process was fast and fair. Our manuscript was properly evaluated on the work submitted both both the reviewers and editor.
Motivation:
Two referee comments within a reasonable time frame. Yet the referees were obviously both economists who (I) didn't competently engage at all with the philosophical substance of my paper and (ii) were hyper-critical of the experimental component of my paper (it was an X-phi paper). I've since been able to place this paper in a great journal, but be warned, if you're trying to publish a piece that involves formalism or an experiment the editors seem to hold you to the same standard practicing economists publishing in top econ journals are held too. This is ridiculous, as I've read lots of very bad philosophical pieces written by economists in this journal. Instead, I'd suggest you publish in PPE, Philosophy of Science or BJPS. They find reasonable reviewers for formal work.
Motivation:
Absolutely unprofessional. The editor misplaced (I was not aware this was even possible) our manuscript and sent previous versions of the manuscript to the reviewers. The whole review process (the almost 8 months!) were confusing and the editors were not reachable at any point.
Motivation:
Everything went very smoothly. I was timely informed about the Editor's decisions and the time frame for feedback was more than reasonable.
17.9 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Great reviews with extensive knowledge in the field (very narrow), however the time of first round of reviews was really long.
Motivation:
"With Editor" at Day 2. "Decision in Progress" from Day 2 to Day 10. Immediate rejection after 10 days - relatively long. Editor said paper wouldn't be interesting enough for their readers. Email said acceptance rate is 25%.
Motivation:
The first round took 6 months, which is a time span one can accept (and expect, with this journal). The second round was, unfortunately, a disaster. We had to contact our editors multiple times to ask about the progress. After half a year of our resubmission, we were told that we would get a decision within a month. Having waited 3 months, we asked again, being told this time that the editors were only waiting for a statistics reviewer. We waited 3 more months, wrote to the editors again, who then accepted our paper for publication, without sending us any review (not even a statistics review) or any substantive editorial comments. Quite a frustrating experience, albeit with a positive outcome.
Motivation:
This was submitted as a short note. We received one very positive review and one rather negative, containing lots of (deliberate?) misunderstandings. Both the associate editor and the editor weighed in with plenty of constructive comments (more so than those of the referees). The editor proposed that we should elaborate the manuscript substantially, despite exceeding the stipulated word limit for short notes. According to the manuscript system (ScholarOne) the manuscript was out for a second round of review. However, once we heard back on Jan 24 2017, it was from the editor, who suggested some further changes and let us give feedback on that. We did so the following day, and then received an accept – without further referee comments – a week later. Thus, while the quality of the referee reports were not great, the editors made a real effort.
Motivation:
The reviews were very helpful and constructive and were accompanied by useful editorial comments. The revision was sent to one of the three reviewers for another evaluation, which was then positive and the paper was accepted with minor revisions. The editorial handling was transparent and fair. The whole process took an acceptable amount of time.
Motivation:
Proofs took a long time, but they were obviously done with a great care. The communication with the editorial team was quick and effective.
Motivation:
It took this journal 11 months and two rounds of review to reach the conclusion that my article should be rejected. In the first round the managing editor conducted the review and suggested revisions. I painstakingly addressed her reviews which were decent. In the second round the editor found a new reviewer and their review was really terrible. It was very lazy and not did not seems fair at all - it made sweeping comments with no justification. It also attacked the research design which is something fundamental that obviously remained unchanged. The editor should never have sent the paper out for review and made us go through 11 months if there was a design flaw. This is my second terrible experience with this journal and I will definitely never submit there and will actively discourage any of my students and colleagues from submitting there.
Motivation:
Despite the reviewers having only minor criticisms that could have been easily addressed, our manuscript was rejected; the reason given was that the findings were not significant enough. The review process was relatively quick and enquiries were answered promptly. Note however that this journal has a submission fee of 75 USD.
Motivation:
It is very good experience to publish in this journal.
Motivation:
I submitted the manuscript on August 2016 and in the beginning of December I sent a inquiry to the editorial office since I had not heard anything. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website it still showed "under editorial review." So in effect they never sent it out for review. I never heard anything back so I inquired again the beginning of January 2017. They sent me back what looked like a form letter saying they were going to look into it. It was concerning that on the website still showed "under editorial review." At that point I explained if I didn't hear back that it was sent out for review I would pull it and submit it elsewhere. I never heard anything back and it still remained under "editorial review." I pulled the manuscript and have submitted it elsewhere. I have published in BMC Public Health and BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth and had good experiences. As a result of this experience I will never submit an article nor review for BMC journals or recommend them to my colleagues.
Motivation:
The process was long, but the paper was significantly improved. The comments were fair and extremely detailed.
Motivation:
Reason(s) for rejection were extremely vague, and didn't set this paper apart from others recently published in the same journal. I got the impression that the editor was biased against the work because it was a theoretical paper based on a theory they didn't like.
Motivation:
The review was of good quality, critical but friendly in tone. Of course, I don't agree in every aspect with the offered critique. However, after six months I expected at least two reviews as a basis for rejection or acceptance. Therefore, in sum, the overall experience is more negative than positive.
Motivation:
Note that this submission was for a special issue, so that I would not consider the processing times typical for the journal.
Motivation:
Rejected for lack of interest by editor.
Motivation:
Fast rejection due to subject not being compatible with journal's interests.