Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One reviewer did not appear to have read the manuscript in detail and had generic comments. The second reviewer, however, provided relevant constructive criticism, which we consider fair and has helped strengthen the quality of the material.
Motivation:
Two R&R were not justified, the editorial decision could have been made faster. Quality of reviews on the second round was low. Process was generally slow.
Motivation:
Given that one reviewer was positive and the other recommended Reject, I believe the process could have benefited from a 3rd reviewer.
Motivation:
The submission process itself is very rapid, and peer-review decision was given 40 days after first submission. (Review took only 5 days!) Reviews, however, were very concise and the reviewers didn't seem to have any expertise in manuscript subject, which was primarily the reason to reject the paper as - in editors opinion - it didn't fit the scope of Academic Radiology journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers were timely, but only one reviewer provided feedback, and this person apparently knew very little about the topic. The editor asked for a revision, but provided no specific suggestions about how to improve the MS. In total, the editor and the reviewer provided 9 sentences of "feedback."
Motivation:
One review suggesting R&R, one review recommending various stylistic changes/clarification. Rejection.
Motivation:
I honestly got one or two of the most incompetent referee reports I've ever had. The editor, whilst nice, seems to not to be able to really discern good from bad quality reports, and referees.
Motivation:
I hope the reviewers focus on more about the quality of the paper and less on other factors.
Motivation:
review process was very quick. We received comments from 2 reviewer's. One of the reviewer suggested relevant changes to the manuscript and second reviewer was more or less naive with his comments, who simply rejected the manuscript, without going through the text thoroughly. Therefore editor decided to reject our manuscript for possible publication in Advanced Materials.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not do a good job on reviewing this manuscript. The review level was that of a C class conference.
Motivation:
We received reviewers'comments at the beginning of January. If the editor was positive with the paper, one of the reviewers was so angry (maybe because he had done the review during the winter festive season) that he wrote only two short lines recommending rejection.
Motivation:
Europe-Asia Studies was my worst experience in publication. I waited almost 8 months for reviewers'comments and the paper received rejection. Although one reviewer was fair and recommended further revision, the other two reviewers asked only for citing their works. Awful journal !
Motivation:
One of my worst experiences with the peer-review process. Although the turn-around time was fast (1 month), reviewers' suggestions were too general. One of the reviewers was either not an English speaker or he was really drunk when writing the review. I hardly tried to understand his suggestions but it was in vein.
Motivation:
Decent referees, but editor was not responsive. Editor had decided to publish after second round of revisions was provided, but never told me s/he had decided to publish until five to six months later when I emailed them personally asking for an update. As a result I wasn't able to list this paper as forthcoming on my CV for the job market that year...
Motivation:
Eight months under review. Rejection with no review reports and no explanation given by the editors.
Motivation:
I would like to thank all people of the Asian Journal of Control for your kind cooperation.
Motivation:
This is my second publication in ASDE. As was the case with the first one, the review process was, overall, very good experience. The initial reviewers made very useful comments and suggestions that helped a lot to improve the work. The subsequent rounds of review were mostly textual or editorial in nature. They were dragged on to ''R3'' due to specific journal requirements, some of which I consider a little strange. An example is the requirement to have a Figure (photo) in the Introduction Section of the manuscript. While subsequent schedules for re-evaluating revised manuscripts were great in their timing, I strongly suggest to improve on the time between initial submission and first review result. My first manuscript with ASDE also suffered from delayed initial review.
Motivation:
I have been writing paper for journals for 46 years, and this is one of the best experiences I have had. The referees' comments were extremely useful and I received them within in one month of submission. After I made the revisions I felt my paper was much improved. The whole procedure was very efficient. The website was standard and easy to use, but when I messed up the submission of the revised paper (my fault entirely), I got help immediately that solved the problem.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to a revier. But all the reviewer said was "This submission is not sufficiently clear or well argued for publication in Philosophical Studies."
Motivation:
It didn't take long. The referee raised some important objections to my argument.
Motivation:
Passed to Advisor stage before editorial rejection. Slower than usual decision due to holiday period.
Motivation:
Disagreement among reviewers led to very lengthly 9-month process of multiple reviews and repeated rebuttles. In the end, 2 positive reviewers and 1 negative reviewer, the editor sided with the negative and in the end the paper was rejected. However, during review periods decisions were reached fairly quickly (3-4 weeks) and editors were very communicative.