Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editorial process was fast. Editor was careful and reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process took too long because the journal could not find adequate reviewers. The reviewer comments were helpful but it appeared that they were not specialist reviewers either. The decision following re submission was very fast.
Motivation:
It took 1 month for this response: "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:
8.6 weeks for first review is too long. Especially if there are just 2 reviewers.
Motivation:
I believe, that just as authors must fill out elaborate conflict of interest forms, journals should be forced to do the same. If they have new specialised journals that they are following a policy of redirecting all relevant manuscripts to, they should say so clearly, so authors can opt out of submission to that journal.
Motivation:
As always, Poetics has very good reviewers (also the editor gave a lot of very good feedback). But the review process is OH SO SLOW!
Motivation:
Very ridiculous reason to reject the paper. The reason was that my paper was based on a single country. Basically EJPR just want cross-national studies which are more likely to be cited in the future. EJPR used to be about interesting research, now it's just citation-hunting and the journal is going downhill...
Motivation:
Good review procedure, without delays. (also very fast publication after acceptance)
Motivation:
The two reviews were very different (positive and negative), and the editor based his decision on the negative one. The positive review was very detailed and extremely helpful.
Motivation:
The whole review process took too long. In the resubmission of the manuscript (where extensive changes were made), the editor said that he received two conflicting reviews, one reviewer was satisfied with the changes, the other acknowledged the changes but thought it was still not ready for publication. This whole process took almost a year and it would be good to have an input earlier on.
Motivation:
The reviews were poor quality. I had one reviewer who only wrote a single sentence. Another reviewer during the first round of reviews made untrue assumptions about what was in my publicly available, well known data set. After I corrected him/her in the response to reviewers, that reviewer continued asking me to do analyses for data I didn't have!
Motivation:
IEEE TAP is rigorous and prestigous journal. Most researchers consider it as the ultimate research venue for antenna & EM research.
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal
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?