Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process at Phytomedicine is frustrating and unprofessional. The only feedback one typically receives is a brief statement that the article does not fit the aim and scope of the journal. This lack of transparency and constructive criticism wastes valuable time for researchers. Rather than providing specific guidance or engaging with the content of the submission, the journal dismisses articles with little explanation. Given this, I would not recommend wasting your time on Phytomedicine. There are far more professional and responsive journals to consider.
Motivation:
The majority of the similarity arises from the appendix section, which includes standardized survey questions commonly used in prior studies.
Motivation:
Fast desk rejection, no reason provided.
Motivation:
brief and unsubstantiated explanations, it seems they have not even read the article
Motivation:
Rejection letter was a “standard” mail saying that us not “in the high priority of the journal”. No input from the editor was provided.
Motivation:
The paper was submitted to a special issue and was perfectly tailored to it. However, the rejection letter did not come from the SI Guest Editors. Instead, it was a generic statement indicating that "As there is a high volume of high-quality manuscripts submitted to International Journal of Qualitative Methods, we must often turn away papers that might be publishable but which we do not have sufficient space for, or which fall outside the journal’s scope." So, it appeared as if the submission did not reach the SI Guest Editors before it was rejected.
Motivation:
Got a custom rejection letter stating the underlying molecular mechanism lacking for publication at Immunity with the proposal to transfer to Cell Reports.
Motivation:
Approximately two months for a desk rejection is unacceptable.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The paper submitted dealt with the environmental impact of a specific transport policy. Desktop rejecting the paper as out of scope seems very odd.
Motivation:
Article not sent for peer review for subjective reasons.
Motivation:
desk rejected
Motivation:
They suggested the direct transfer to a sister journal.
Motivation:
Smooth review process and friendly editors with good advice on where to submit our paper - which was not fit for the journal and they clearly and nicely explained why.
Motivation:
Long time for a desk reject.
Motivation:
My proposal has been reviewed by topic experts. Unfortunately, their topic experts have decided that they are not able to pursue my paper further at this time.
Motivation:
Desk rejected by the Editor. No reason provided. Transfer to Chem. Eur. J. was offered. However, the review process at that venue was terrible (previously reviewed). Overall, experience with these two Wiley publications has been terrible in recent years.
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected in less than 24 hours by a "Topic Editor". Transfer to another ACS journal was offered, which was not acceptable. Enquiry about the reason for the rejection, led the Editor to seek the opinion of another Associate Editor who (obviously) concurred. Not a positive experience by any measure.
Motivation:
The comments were accurate, and the editorial board provided advice and transfer to more fitting journals.
Motivation:
On the one hand, a bit slow for a desk rejection, but then again, they seem to have read the paper at the editorial office and didn't reject the abstract as seems to be the case with other journals. Thoughtful recommendations.
Motivation:
Too long review process. Editor did not reply to my emails. The worst experience I have ever had with a journal.
Motivation:
Short feedback, but clearly from an editor who read the paper carefully.
Motivation:
The journal demonstrated a high level of professionalism throughout the review and publication process.
The reviewers' comments were constructive and relevant, contributing to improving the quality of the manuscript.
The editors were responsive, collaborative, and provided clear and timely guidance at every stage.
Additionally, the copy editors were highly skilled and approachable, offering valuable support and ensuring the manuscript was polished to the highest standard.
Overall, it was a very positive and smooth experience, and I highly recommend this young journal that deserves to grow.
The reviewers' comments were constructive and relevant, contributing to improving the quality of the manuscript.
The editors were responsive, collaborative, and provided clear and timely guidance at every stage.
Additionally, the copy editors were highly skilled and approachable, offering valuable support and ensuring the manuscript was polished to the highest standard.
Overall, it was a very positive and smooth experience, and I highly recommend this young journal that deserves to grow.
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process took too long. The paper was out for review at least two times before a final decision was reached.
Motivation:
My overall experience and communication with editors was good. Both editors and reviewers were competent in their handling of the manuscript. The paper was accepted with minor revisions approximately 6 months after the submission. However, post acceptance handling was very lengthy. Between submission and publication it took around 2 full years. So, I would not suggest it for PhD students or scholars who are in a rush with publishing their work.
Motivation:
I have never experienced a journal taking so long time for final decision. Although officially advertised as aiming for 45 days from submission to 1st decision, our submission took 60 days for editor assignment and about 150 days for 1st decision. Furthermore, the deadline for revision was set at two weeks after the decision letter; it took more than two weeks to receive a response to an e-mail sent to the editorial office requesting an extension of the deadline. Our manuscript was reviewed by four reviewers. In the end, after about 300 days of waiting for a final decision, our manuscript has been rejected. Additional reviewers’ comments made sense, and I thought the editor in charge had invited an additional reviewer to carefully review the manuscript until the end, hence, there is no appeal of the decision itself. However, the time to reach 1st decision was too long. At the very least, I thought the advertisement should reflect the actual situation.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
1 month reviewing. 1 reviewer rejected, 1 reviewer give a major comment. Generally the process is fast.
Motivation:
All 3 reviewers found the manuscript interesting and just suggested major revisions. The reviewers' comments were reasonable. However, the editor rejected it without any reason.
Motivation:
The submission process is very smooth, however, the website indicates that review time averages ~1 month, which signficantly shorter than we experienced, especially after revision. It didn't appear that reviewers with the expertise we were targeting were selected based on the questions and misinterpretations that were made.
Motivation:
The review process took longer than I expected.
Motivation:
The editor took several weeks on their part and then did not write any comments of their own. The reviews were short, but reasonable. Even with a positive, neutral, and somewhat negative review, the submission was rejected without comment.
Motivation:
The reviewing process takes a long time.
Motivation:
Based on my experiences in submitting and receiving review results from this journal, I think the editor of "Technology Analysis&Strategic Management" has a very low level of self-determination whether to push further process for a manuscript or not. After the first round of review, I received two review reports from peer reviewers, and then I resubmitted the revised manuscript. After the second round of review, the reviewer 1 was satisfied with the revised manuscript. However, reviewer 2 was unsatisfied with the revised manuscript and insisted that he or she thinks that the authors did not consider what he or she commented during the first round of review. That argument seems absurd to me, considering that the authors gave responses to reviewer 2 regarding comments received from reviewer 2.
In some cases(e.g. other journals), editors push through the review process based on their own judgment when a reviewer keeps acting absurd. However, editors of "Technology Analysis & strategic Management" avoid continuing the process when there are disagreements between reviewers.
In some cases(e.g. other journals), editors push through the review process based on their own judgment when a reviewer keeps acting absurd. However, editors of "Technology Analysis & strategic Management" avoid continuing the process when there are disagreements between reviewers.
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review was quick, but of very low quality. Almost all of the reviewer's concerns, questions and suggestions had already been clarified and addressed in the manuscript. It seemed like the reviewer had not read most of the article. Our response to the review was ignored.
Motivation:
The review turn around time for this journal is quite fast; however, editor should wait for at least two review reports before giving the decision on a manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers identified so-called weaknesses that were not weaknesses at all. They were easily refutable. However, the editor did not give us the chance to revise the manuscript, arguing that the weaknesses were difficult to address. It is a pity that we were not able to defend our work. I appreciate the editor for sending out the manuscript to reviewers, but I give a low score for judgment of the revisions required. The main argument against our manuscript was flawed and could be easily refuted.
Motivation:
The review process was unnecessarily long. The reviews seem overall complete and reasonable, although short. Some mentions in one of the reviews makes us suspect that it was mixed with the review of a different paper, as it discusses statements not present in our work.
Motivation:
The reviewing timeline was extensive, and peer comments were frustrating. It seemed detrimental to describe the paper as "brilliant" scientifically but disqualify it because of the sensitive issues it addresses. For a paper with no scientific issues and fitting the journal's scope, corrections requests would have seemed appropriate to smooth the political dimension.