Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The overall process was very slow.
Motivation:
I submitted a paper in this journal and we got a decision in onw week. The only problem is the lack of reasons to reject the paper without any reviews.
Motivation:
After the submission of the revised article, the editor informed that it was sent to the previous reviewers for review. However, both the reviewers declined to re-review the revised article. It was not even sent to new reviewers for review. The associate editor himself started to review the revised article. He took 3 long months to review and rejected the article without any solid reasons. We had addressed almost all the reviewer comments in the revised article.
According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.
According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.
Motivation:
All in all, the review process was fine. However, in my opinion, the quality of one reviewer's report was very low, and this reviewer was obviously not familiar with the research area. Furthermore, this reviewer then withdrew from the review process at a later stage (for no obvious/mentioned reason), which considerably delayed the review process, because then a new review round started from scratch with a new reviewer.
Motivation:
The submission process was easy. The entire review and resubmission was fast and without any problems. Site is very user friendly.
Motivation:
Reviews were useful and relevant, and the editor was supportive. However, both the first (seven months) and the second (two months and a half) editorial decisions took too long.
Motivation:
26 weeks, no comment ......
Motivation:
My main criticism is that 3 months is a lot of time for a revision process (btw, my paper was quite short, only 3 figures), thus I expected at least a constructive criticism of the reviewers. Instead, one of the reviewers criticized the methodology without providing any advice or giving us any chance to justify the choice of our method. I believe this does not lead to a proper scientific discussion.
Motivation:
Reviewers were obviously from two very different fields, recommending two very different sets of additional experiments. This caused rejection by the editor.
Motivation:
The editor said that they would not consider our study for a full research article since our study is totally computational and on the topic of genomics.
Motivation:
Nice and very fast reviewing process.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous and the handling time of our manuscript was reasonable. The copy edit process was also rigorous and the grammar of our manuscript was significantly improved in the final published version.
Motivation:
The editor's handling was fast. Our manuscript was quickly sent out for review. The referee comments and editor's final decision were fair and justified.
Motivation:
The editor rejected our manuscript after 3 days of submission. This is a very fast response speed, and we were able to re-submit to Physical Review series. We believe that the editor's decision was fair and justified.
Motivation:
Peer review process is very rigorous. The editor allowed us to spend considerable amount of time to revised our manuscript. Editor and reviewer comments/decisions are fair and justified.
Motivation:
A month for a desk rejection is slow.
Motivation:
After 6 weeks after submission, we have received 2 reviews - one positive and one negative. Unfortunately, the editor inclined to the negative review and rejected the manuscript. We wrote appeal letter, because the negative review was absolutely out of the bowl, using unscientific based arguments...we were writing 4 pages long appeal letter for the WHOLE DAY, carefully argumenting each reviewer statement. It takes only 5 MINUTES to getting answer from editor-in-chief: "You need to send it to some other journal". So, he couldn´t open and read our appeal letter. I think, such behavior is very unfair and nonprofessional.
Motivation:
While the paper was rejected, the reviews were fair. The associate editor took the extra effort of doing some extra research, so that we can further pursue the research reported in the paper. She also apologized in advance for the delay of the decision.
Motivation:
I sent a withdrawal letter and the editorial office replied ensuring they have withdrawn the manuscript. later, after 1 week I received an email with the rejection decision!!
Motivation:
"Recently we have implemented a TRIAGE SYSTEM to identify those submissions, which stand a fair chance of being accepted for publication. While we are sure that you spent considerable time and effort on performing this study, your current manuscript does not fulfill the criteria set by the journal."
First, the editor didn't provide any information about what criteria the manuscript didn't fulfill. and When I sent him an email asking about the journal's CRITERIA, I received no reply since then.
Second, I don't understand the word "Triage system to manuscript". that doesn't even have a literal meaning!!
First, the editor didn't provide any information about what criteria the manuscript didn't fulfill. and When I sent him an email asking about the journal's CRITERIA, I received no reply since then.
Second, I don't understand the word "Triage system to manuscript". that doesn't even have a literal meaning!!
Motivation:
Two relevant reviews within a reasonable amount of time
Motivation:
Received three half-page reviews which made clear that the reviewers did not like the manuscript, but were not particularly engaged or constructive.
Motivation:
This decision could be taken in one week maximum. It is more than enough to check the manuscript suitability. In this journal the same decision took about three months.
Motivation:
Editor-in-chief answered promptly and was helpful. Online tracking system is functioning well. We feel that the review process increased the overall quality of the paper. Reviewers were familiar with the area of research and comments were thorough and knowledgeable, and took only 4 weeks.
Motivation:
Reviews was usefull and reviewers looks very expierenced in the field of our research. Reviewers works fast. A littlle bit long time paper have status "with editor".
Motivation:
The review process was very fast. Reviewers comments was useful. Totally ol review process looks very well.
Motivation:
The length of the first review was exceptionally long. However, the editors were responsive to my inquiries during the lengthy review