Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Rejected due to methodological approach incompatible with journal's interest.
Motivation:
Short but adequate justification.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast rejection due to article's subject, journals in other fields suggested.
Motivation:
Fast editorial rejection due to article's subject, journal suggestions offered.
Motivation:
Fast rejection because article was publicly available as working paper, violating submission rules.
Motivation:
Submission fee excessive, lack of response to status requests, article not sent to referees and editorial report justifying rejection was short, mediocre and wrong after holding the article for more than one year.
Motivation:
Editorial rejection review was precise, knowledgeable and respectful.
Motivation:
Reviews were ok but could have been sent to reviewers knowing more about the scientific subjects - most critics were about adhering to journal standards, figures etc. First round of review took a bit too long.
Motivation:
Rejection because of critics from 2 out of 3 reviewers. The reviews were detailed, although not everything was well understood methode-wise. One week less would have been ok, but 7 weeks for rejection is quite long and an annoying loss of time.
Motivation:
Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Motivation:
Editor was balanced and reasonable. Review report was good. Second round was quite fast. The single less satisfactory aspect was that only one reviewer was consulted.
Motivation:
CEJPP was very professional in this handling my manuscript. The editor-in-chief even emailed me to notify me that the second reviewer had not delivered their report on time. The journal appointed a reviewer immediately and the entire process was very expedient.
Motivation:
The review process was very transparent with the editor being very open about the time schedule. The reviews I received were of good quality and helpful. The entire process was swift.
Motivation:
Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
Motivation:
This was a submission for a special issue. Everything went smoothly, and I got excellent feedback form the editors, as well as good and constructive comments from the reviewers.