All reviews received by SciRev

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: 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: Passed to Advisor stage before editorial rejection. Slower than usual decision due to holiday period.

Motivation: 4 weeks for editorial decision not to send for external review was way too lengthy.

Motivation: Reviewers comments did not help me to improve the paper. Their comments indicated a possible lack of understanding of the problem, methodology and the solution. The editor who supervised the review, followed the reviewers decision.

Motivation: Handling Editor-in-Chief changed during the review process (8 months after 1st submission) and thus, there was another set of new reviews which was unnecessary. EiC should've completed the decision process before stepping down. Not very professional I must say.

Motivation: The rejection letter to the resubmitted manuscript, which was revised according to reviewer comments after the first round of peer review, stated that the subject matter was not of interest to the broader readership of the journal.This being the case, it would have been preferable if the manuscript had been rejected immediately after first being submitted to the journal which would have saved us at least 6 months. Now we have to begin the process of submission again with another journal.

Motivation: The overall process was relatively fast. The manuscript was assigned to three different referees, nevertheless their background on the topic studied in the manuscript was apparently poor and resulted in several naive comments. I do not know if the journal's policy, regarding its broad readership, includes inviting not specialized reviewers, however, we finally got only a minimal feedback, despite the three different reports we received. The manuscript was rejected because the reviews were "not positive enough". We ended up surprised, not by the rejection per se, but by the unexpectedly low quality of the reviews.