Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The subject of our paper was not relevant to the current concerns of the journal, but we had chosen this journal based on some relevant articles in its previous volumes. The journal has sent us a very fast feedback with some propositions for guiding us to select a more relevant journal. This fast and convincing response shows the regularity and discipline of this great journal.
Motivation:
Very transparent and fair decision. Would definitely submit there again.
Motivation:
BMC Biology determines whether a manuscript to be sent out for external review by their editor team in consultation with Editorial borad members.
Motivation:
Three high quality review reports which arrived in less than 3 months time (pretty good for linguistics and especially during summer). I learned a lot from the reviews and the papre improved a lot. The article was accepted on the same day as it was resubmitted. Very pleasant interaction with editorial staff. Smooth handling.
Motivation:
Plus: High quality reviews were fair and really improved the paper.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Minus: Editor was not part of the review process, so a lot depends of reviewer choice and luck.
Motivation:
Very constructive reviews and a fast decision after submitting the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
Constructive remarks from the reviewers. Editor efficient and professional.
Motivation:
Very long desk rejection process, zero personalised feedback. Waste of time.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted on 1st May on a Special Issue. The outcome of the review process was expected on 31st July. On 28th August, we sent an email to the guest Editor asking for some news without any reply. On 8th September, we sent an email to the Editor in Chief, who imformed us about the rejection with only one attached review.
Motivation:
Good and timely handling of the manuscript. Competent reviewers and a communicative and devoted editor.
Motivation:
In this journal they follow, as I later discovered, the following procedure:
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Overall quality of reviews and journal submission system is excellent. Editor was not a subject area expert and deferred to nitpicking of reviewers too much, requiring multiple rounds of review that could have been more efficiently handled.
Motivation:
Overall, very happy with quality of reviews and review process. However, the journal's office policy/submission system can be improved. Currently, G3 has two options for revise and resubmit. The first allows 30 days to revise and does not require entering metadata for the article again. The second allows 90 days to revise but requires the author to manually re-enter all of the metadata required for a new submission.
Motivation:
The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.
Motivation:
This was my first submitted paper in this journal. The review process was completely good and the review process lasted about 1 month.
Motivation:
My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
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.