Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process took extremely long (for a Discussion article), and I did not receive review reports so I am not sure whether it has been reviewed apart from the editors. Finally, the Closure that belonged to this Discussion did not match (e.g. referring to non-existing figures), so it seems the editors did not check and read carefully.
Motivation:
I found out about Web Ecology by searching in the DAFNEE database for society-based open access journals. I am very glad I found it. The EIC and managing editor were both very helpful and prompt in answering my pre-submission inquiry. The editor's guidance based on the reviews was very clear. The reviewing steps and publishing steps are all communicated very well so you always know what stage your manuscript is at.
Motivation:
Received three positive reviews amounting to minor revisions after initial submission, but the editor seemed incompetent or did not know what to the reviews said and ended up sending it back out for review two more times, wasting everyone's time. The journal changed my title after acceptance and necessitated corrections. One year after acceptance, the final version still has not be published in an issue.
Motivation:
It took 11 months for peer review. I inquired three times during that time. The reply was always just an apology; I thought if it was a rejection, they should reject it quickly so I could move on.
Motivation:
initial editorial decision (desk rejection) took quite long
Motivation:
I would not resubmit here. After more than 4 months we received news that the journal was unable of finding reviewers and that the academic editor was unresponsive. This was a pure waste of time.
Motivation:
I appreciated that the editor was communicative and replied fast.
Nevertheless, the report came after 7 months for a relatively short article, it was slim and it felt like the referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Nevertheless, the report came after 7 months for a relatively short article, it was slim and it felt like the referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Motivation:
We addressed all the comment in the R &R, the second round of reviewer brought up all new issues, which were not mentioned in the first round of review. Also the suggestion was very arbitrary and showed the reviewer’s lack of knowledge of the data set used in the paper as well as the misunderstanding of our paper.
Motivation:
The considerations made by the reviewers were partly wrong. After the first round of reviews (with three resubmissions), one reviewer decided that the work did not present scientific innovations and, therefore, should be rejected. After that, the article was sent to two more reviewers, who, after another round, accepted the work.
Motivation:
The reviews were extremely thorough and fair. It was worth the time it took to make revisions. The manuscript was improved.
Motivation:
Generally pleasant experience. The three reviewers were respectful and professional. The editors decision after the resubmission of the revised manuscript took a long time, I think because the editor got sick. I sent multiple inquiries to the state of the manuscript, which were handled very nicely and professionally. After the manuscript was accepted the journal continued to upload the wrong supplementary data but this was rectified after some more emails. Very lovely production team and very productive review process.
Motivation:
The first review round took three months, and despite that there was only one reviewer. The first round of reviews seemed fair, but in the second and third round the reviewer got hung up on something relatively minor that should have made them reject the manuscript outright if it was such a dealbreaker. The editor did not intervene in any way. Overall, the process took six months, during which the editor ignored most of our emails. Will never submit here again.
Motivation:
They were really fast about their decision; however, the lack of any feedback is disappointing.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was absurdly long, with 7 MONTHS from the submission to the first decision of revision and another 9 MONTHS waiting for the second report after my revision submission, and then the draft was rejected with no reason given by the editor. I do not know what to comment on this extremely long process (during which I could not submit my draft elsewhere and I am a graduate student with only 5 year period of my program!) and how disappointed I was. The editor was very irresponsible and unprofessional. I understand the acceptance rate is low, so I am not angry about the final denial. But they should at least reject it within a reasonable duration. If they could not do their job (I heard that the editor became a dean of her department recently), they should let the author know, so that we can consider submitting our paper to other journals. I don't know if this is normal for this journal or just for the last 2 years (due to transition of publisher), but I feel it does not deserve its reputation now. I rated 1 star for the quality of two of the referee report, otherwise a 17 months rejection with only two rounds of revision should be rated zero.
Motivation:
I had to suggest reviewers along the way, and at some point I stopped hearing from the editor for a while. I received the first review before a second reviewer was found.
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 simply stated that the manuscript did not fit the scope of the journal. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, stated the same thing but then also added several angry comments. The comments were very opinionated, and not scientifically based. No constructive feedback was provided and, overall, the review was very unhelpful.
Motivation:
It took the journal 6 months to come to the conclusion that "it does not fit the scope of the journal". As an early-career scholar, this amount of time is detrimental.
Motivation:
Review process took very long. Inquiring about the situation yielded no answers. Finally, the interaction with the publisher (the huge Elsevier machinery) was rather unpleasant and difficult. The eventual editing was also not as I approved it in the last version.
Motivation:
They provided a variety of alternative titles that I could select a transfer to which is in stark contrast to some other journals' practice with article transfers.
Motivation:
Two months after submission the paper was still with editor. When enquired, the editor sought reviewers for a quick opinion but never answered our email.
Motivation:
For a conceptual model deriving propositions, I received two reviews. One reviewer would have accepted to revise the manuscript, but the other rejeced it, basically with the argument that the model was too speculative and there are not enough theoretical or empirical studies supporting the propositions. When a new model is measured by these standards, only models that confirm existing knowledge (and develop porpositions out of empirical evidence?) are accepted. How can scientific progress be possible in this way? The editor followed the opinion of this reviewer and rejected it after one round. In total, this frustrating process took 33(!) weeks.
Motivation:
Desk rejected, but the manuscript was properly reviewed by the editor. Apparently we didn't explain a key detail of the methodology well enough, and it was regarded as a flaw rather than a (logical) necessity.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 104.0 weeks
Drawn back
Motivation:
It is hard to understand how the editor did not answer any of our emails in more than 3 months. Not even one to confirm the receipt, although it was sent on 2 valid emails. Time and opportunities lost for the authors.
Motivation:
Immediate feedback saved a lot of time. Polite and considerate email.
Motivation:
Desk rejection due to lack of interest, time to reach decision could have been shorter.
Motivation:
The review process is quite slow. The editor said that the reason why it took so long was waiting for the third reviewer, but there were only two in the end, one of whom has a very positive opinion, but the other has a completely opposite opinion. The main criticism is that the manuscript lacks details, although the journal has strict restrictions on the number of words and figures.
Motivation:
La revista sólo se publica anualmente.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60.8 weeks
Drawn back
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 183.0 weeks
Drawn back
Motivation:
I submitted a manuscript to this journal in May. The status in the online submissions platform was "reviewers assigned" in June. After four months, with the status still "reviewers assigned", I sent an email to the handling editor asking about the submission's status. There was no response. I sent another email after five months, with no response. After six months, I sent emails to the handling editor and the managing editor of the journal. Neither responded.
This was a frustrating waste of time. I will certainly not bother again with this journal.
This was a frustrating waste of time. I will certainly not bother again with this journal.