Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
more than 6 months until first decision (only after reminding the editors)
Motivation:
It was not the fastest process, but I was very content with the way the journal handled the submission and the quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
Response editor, but no editorial comments or suggestions in r&r letter.
Motivation:
I felt that the review process was quite fast and reviewer knew and understood the work.
Motivation:
The reviewers gave me useful, constructive feedback that helped me improve the manuscript. I learned a lot from the reviewers' report.
Motivation:
Reviewers are very serious, the article on the changes, put forward a lot of constructive comments, while the magazine's review process is convenient and quick.
Motivation:
Competent reviewers, but took around 7 months before we heard anything.
Motivation:
Email reads: "The editorial workload at present makes it impossible to provide you with detailed comments. We cannot provide comments on rejected papers. We focus rather on arriving at a well-informed judgment without undue delay."
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround. We felt the editors' reasons for rejecting were not unreasonable.
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround, fair assessment for why it didn't fit with the journal.
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround, and good suggestions of other more suitable journals.
Motivation:
Reviews were mostly fair and had some criticisms that we felt we could address. Unfortunately, the editor rejected completely without opportunity to revise, even though the reviewers seemed open to revisions in their comments.
Motivation:
A very long review process. I received a very strange report that contained an "amalgamation" of two reviews, as it was explained by the editor. It was impossible to judge whether one, two or three persons wrote the review report. The review report itself was very angry and provided no help. Non-transparent reviewing. I will not submit a new paper until the current editorial team will be changed by new editors.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not understand the work. Instead instead of declaring this, they based their arguments in impressions and declared that they did not believe some of the results. Those results were based on published and well-known theoretical tools.
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
Motivation:
Though our paper was rejected for too much focus on methodological development, I was satisfied with the overall journal experience. While 2.5 weeks for a desk rejection may seem long, it was submitted shortly before the typical US winter holiday break, and therefore most people would likely hear sooner.
Motivation:
Reviewing process was thorough, communication was quick.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviewers of this journal seem to be expecting to read only what they believe. If you dare to send a manuscript of a topic even mildly controversial, you will be rejected.
Motivation:
Editor was careful, balanced, and reasonable. Review reports were satisfactory. Speed of whole process was good.
Motivation:
I got comments from two referees. It didn't take long. One of the referees raised an important objection to my argument.
Motivation:
The immediate rejection was unfair because the editor has not understood the submission because of a sloppy assessment. I replied but the editor refused to admit his mistake.