Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review reports were candid and constructive. The quality of the manuscript definitely improved from the initial submission. It is worth the wait!
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by the Editorial Board after almost 7 months. During this period I kindly asked to have some communication by the Editor but I never had any reply. According to the Journal web site, the manuscript was under review, but the communication by the Editor in Chief simply said that “the Editorial Board has evaluated the manuscript unacceptable for publication in our journal”. No additional comment or reason was provided or available on the website.
Motivation:
Very good communication with the Editor. Also, the Editor gives details from the beginning about the period necessary for reviewing the manuscript and kept it. It offers a large variety of possibilities for the topics. A little bit too long to wait for answers from the reviewers, but communication with the Editor compensates this problem.
23.7 weeks
42.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Too much long review process. More than an year to see the paper published.
Motivation:
Extremely rapid. Valuable comments.
Motivation:
The editor seemed to have had little bagage to either select appropriate reviewers, or evaluate the quality of the reviews. The whole process took ages (of which nearly a month just to decide whether to send out for review). Over a month after formally going into review a former colleague of mine (one with whom I have published previously) was asked to review the manuscript. One single Google action by the editor would have made it clear that this is not an appropriate request given our previous ties. It seems to me that the only reason my colleague got this request was because he has a study in revision with Nature Communications so that his name was in their system. Naturally he reclined and apparently a different reviewer was invited. The reviews I ended up getting were of poor quality, attacking points that were very explicitly controlled for in the study. I did not read a single point of valid criticism by any of the reviewers. I've decided taking my business elsewhere, I will not be submitting with Nature Communications again, the turnaround time for a high impact journal is huge (even though they pride themselves on being fast), and the editor does not seem up to speed in our field (Cognitive Neuroscience).
Motivation:
Paper submission management system is fast and effective.
Motivation:
Quick feedback from editor and reviewers, except for the final decision.
Relevant comments in general
Relevant comments in general
Motivation:
Good reviews in reasonable delay
Motivation:
The paper was sent to peer-review and the process took more than 3 months. One of the reviewers provided a sustained feedback which revealed an attentive reading of our paper, highlighting many flaws which we were able to correct thanks to him/her and prepare the paper for further submission to another journal. The second reviewer however was sarcastic and very condescending. He/She provided a two line review stating that the paper had a major methodological flaw which made it unworthy of further comments. When submitting a paper to peer review in a top journal, we expect to get a report based on a objective reading of the paper and not on reviewer's "methodological ideologies". Through the provided report, it was obvious that the reviewer in question did not even read the paper thoroughly and just decided it was unworthy of even considering it.
Motivation:
The reviews were good, but it was the work of the very knowledgeable and capable editorial board that really helped improving this manuscript during the review process. The editors managed to keep the balance between the opinions of the reviewers and our intentions as authors, and worked actively to make the manuscript fit for publication.
Motivation:
Slow, editor comments suggested cursory reading of reviewers.
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief sent us a very polite rejection email, highlighting why the article was not a good fit for JPS. He also suggested submitting another journal to which to submit, an unusually helpful thing for an EiC to do. Definitely the best desk rejection there could be.
Motivation:
The journal provided me with external review and gave no specific reasons for rejecting my manuscripts. I suspect that what I received was a generic paragraph sent to all the author whose article suffered the same fate as mine:
'I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum.
I wish you all the best in your academic endeavours.
Thank you for having considered Novum Testamentum for publication of your research.
Yours sincerely,'
'I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum.
I wish you all the best in your academic endeavours.
Thank you for having considered Novum Testamentum for publication of your research.
Yours sincerely,'
Motivation:
Prompt reviewing process. Constructive comments from reviewers and editor which helped us improve the article.
Motivation:
This is one of the few journals that provided us with an expected duration of the review process (4 months) at the time of submission. The journal was very prompt (only 2 months) and after sending us reviewer comments, Dr Sheikh, the editor, was very prompt in his communication with us.
Motivation:
The submission process was not automated (November 2016; submission is via email). This may prove to be problematic; submissions may get lost, it is difficult to keep track of things, etc. However, I experienced no problems. Actually, the editorial office was very responsive and provided me considerable information on how the process was to proceed.
Motivation:
Almost a year for a first response, with only 2 reviewers, one of the reviews was very shallow, more superficial than a conference review, the other one pushing references that were presumably "related" and should be included in the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review was prompt and the quality of the review feedback was good. However, the journal advised that the article be substantially revised and resubmitted to a different (new) journal instead. It appeared to be simultaneously a rejection from this particular journal, and an invitation to revise and resubmit to a different one, with no explanation of why (or if) this alternative journal was more appropriate, if indeed that was why the decision was made in this way.