Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A very smooth and timely process, with constructive criticism given by the reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process was fast. Good manuscript tracking system. The editor was kind.
Motivation:
Editor pushed manuscript to subjournal; no feedback on manuscript.
Motivation:
I am a great fan of how quickly everything was handled by ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. My only beef with the ACS system is that there is no feedback on whether your manuscript is still with the editor or under review.
Motivation:
A thoroughly disheartening and shambolic process. First set of reviews: 2 positive, 1 negative. Response of editor: "One of the referees had very major criticisms of your paper. If you believe you can fully address the deficiencies then we would be willing to see a radically revised version. However I should advise you that we would send it back to the same referee. You might therefore want to think carefully whether you wish to do this or consider another journal." We thought carefully, but decided to resubmit because the reviewer had misunderstood some basic methodological details and also made erroneous comments about the statistical analyses. So, of course we could address his/her petty concerns!
In addition to the detailed response to the reviewer, we sent a letter to the editor explaining that we were concerned about possible bias and the various errors s/he had made, providing detailed and blunter rebuttals than would have been sensible to put in the 'response to reviewers' document. The editor is after all an elder statesman of psychiatry, and would obviously make a wise and considered judgement? So we waited for about 2 months and eventually were told the review (singular) had been received and that a decision was imminent. A further two weeks went by and still no word. When we enquired, we were then told that the paper had been sent out for review AGAIN. We thought this was a good sign, believing that the negative reviewer's views must have remained unchanged after the revision and that the sage editor had decided that the fairest course of action was to get a fourth/fifth opinion. And then, two days after that we were told that the paper was rejected (i.e. before the re-re-review). We were only sent the negative reviewer's second set of comments (which predictably contained a series of additional concerns).
It is of course possible that we were viewing our work through rose tinted glasses, seeing it as a major breakthrough in psychiatry (the two positive reviewers took a more modest view of our work, but commended it as important, nonetheless) and that the negative reviewer was right to criticise our work (and the editor right to reject it on the basis of that criticism). But it really concerns me that the editor was so willingly and credulously swayed by a reviewer whose comments, by any measure of pettiness, were trivial and/or based on a misunderstanding of the literature and statistical methods. My feeling was that our fate was sealed after the first reviews and the fairest thing would have been to definitively put us out of our misery at that stage. Instead we waited >5 months to receive a really ill considered decision.
In addition to the detailed response to the reviewer, we sent a letter to the editor explaining that we were concerned about possible bias and the various errors s/he had made, providing detailed and blunter rebuttals than would have been sensible to put in the 'response to reviewers' document. The editor is after all an elder statesman of psychiatry, and would obviously make a wise and considered judgement? So we waited for about 2 months and eventually were told the review (singular) had been received and that a decision was imminent. A further two weeks went by and still no word. When we enquired, we were then told that the paper had been sent out for review AGAIN. We thought this was a good sign, believing that the negative reviewer's views must have remained unchanged after the revision and that the sage editor had decided that the fairest course of action was to get a fourth/fifth opinion. And then, two days after that we were told that the paper was rejected (i.e. before the re-re-review). We were only sent the negative reviewer's second set of comments (which predictably contained a series of additional concerns).
It is of course possible that we were viewing our work through rose tinted glasses, seeing it as a major breakthrough in psychiatry (the two positive reviewers took a more modest view of our work, but commended it as important, nonetheless) and that the negative reviewer was right to criticise our work (and the editor right to reject it on the basis of that criticism). But it really concerns me that the editor was so willingly and credulously swayed by a reviewer whose comments, by any measure of pettiness, were trivial and/or based on a misunderstanding of the literature and statistical methods. My feeling was that our fate was sealed after the first reviews and the fairest thing would have been to definitively put us out of our misery at that stage. Instead we waited >5 months to receive a really ill considered decision.
Motivation:
standard rejection: "The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal."
overall submission process quite pleasant (online information on status of submission etc)
overall submission process quite pleasant (online information on status of submission etc)
Motivation:
We received constructive comments which were easy to address. The editor was very prompt to accept the article. Overall I am very satisfied by World Development. This is the second time I have an article accepted and the overall process is constructive and relatively fast.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and the editorial staff moderated the reviews well.
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was good overall. The review I received was detailed and showed that the reviewer engaged with the article. The majority of suggestions were very useful and significantly improved my article, while just a few were misunderstandings.
Motivation:
When a reviewer was delayed in uploading their comments, the journal reached out to me to share a status update, which I greatly appreciated. Appreciated relatively quick turnaround times.
Motivation:
Editorial process was fast. Editor was careful and reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process took too long because the journal could not find adequate reviewers. The reviewer comments were helpful but it appeared that they were not specialist reviewers either. The decision following re submission was very fast.
Motivation:
It took 1 month for this response: "The Journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article’s perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted."
Motivation:
8.6 weeks for first review is too long. Especially if there are just 2 reviewers.
Motivation:
I believe, that just as authors must fill out elaborate conflict of interest forms, journals should be forced to do the same. If they have new specialised journals that they are following a policy of redirecting all relevant manuscripts to, they should say so clearly, so authors can opt out of submission to that journal.
Motivation:
As always, Poetics has very good reviewers (also the editor gave a lot of very good feedback). But the review process is OH SO SLOW!
Motivation:
Very ridiculous reason to reject the paper. The reason was that my paper was based on a single country. Basically EJPR just want cross-national studies which are more likely to be cited in the future. EJPR used to be about interesting research, now it's just citation-hunting and the journal is going downhill...
Motivation:
Good review procedure, without delays. (also very fast publication after acceptance)
Motivation:
The two reviews were very different (positive and negative), and the editor based his decision on the negative one. The positive review was very detailed and extremely helpful.
Motivation:
The whole review process took too long. In the resubmission of the manuscript (where extensive changes were made), the editor said that he received two conflicting reviews, one reviewer was satisfied with the changes, the other acknowledged the changes but thought it was still not ready for publication. This whole process took almost a year and it would be good to have an input earlier on.
Motivation:
The reviews were poor quality. I had one reviewer who only wrote a single sentence. Another reviewer during the first round of reviews made untrue assumptions about what was in my publicly available, well known data set. After I corrected him/her in the response to reviewers, that reviewer continued asking me to do analyses for data I didn't have!
Motivation:
IEEE TAP is rigorous and prestigous journal. Most researchers consider it as the ultimate research venue for antenna & EM research.
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal