Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reasonable time for turnaround, motives for rejection are clear.
Motivation:
Long turnaround, there was a long wait period until it was sent for review. Although the manuscript advertised short review times, it took a total of 3 months. One of the reviewers also rejected with blank statements of non-novelty without providing evidence/citations. Very frustrating.
Motivation:
The peer review system of Applied Soft Computing is exceptionally bad. First, the associate editor has much power on the editorial decisions. My paper was undergone 3 major revisions. At the end of this, the 2 reviewers (of earlier cycle) stated that the points are properly addressed. However, the associate editor reported that "he has not yet satisfied with the revision". In order to reject the paper, he send the paper to a completely different reviewer . In addition, the Editor or associate editor never replied to any of my messages. It was a totally frustrating experience.
Motivation:
The paper was sent out for review 2 times and then rejected. The second round of reviews were very favorable (they were easy to address for another journal), but it was rejected for a reason that was unclear (after about 1.5 years of review)
Motivation:
I have been very satisfied with handling, processing, and review of manuscripts with Applications in Plant Sciences. The editorial staff is very communicative and reviews are responsive and thorough. Internal and outside reviewers were well selected and provided comments that greatly improved my manuscript. The staff has worked with me to improve style and layout of figures and tables that greatly improves the visual presentation of the content. The editorial staff also regularly promotes published content for broader dissemination in professional and social media.
Motivation:
Editors and reviewers know the topic quite well
30.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After 6 months we got two reviews saying that the paper is very good, but both proposed to reject it as too specialized
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 456.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The journal did not react to my mail during several months, then they answered that the referee does not respond to their mails for more than 6 months. We decided to withdraw the submission (after a wating time of 15 months).
Motivation:
Good experience overall
Motivation:
eLife promises to work on initial submissions within a week. It took a month. They also adversitse their Journal with a 'painless' review process. Then the paper was rejected with the following (very dismissive) )sentence:
"While perhaps for specialists (modelers) this study may have particular value, for us it lacks impact as it does not fundamentally change current thinking. We did not see anything unexpected or anything that would lead to a dramatic shift in thinking about pathways, inhibitors, etc. Certainly you provide some interesting insight, but nothing that feel is impactful enough to be reviewed favorably."
And now the fun thing comes: There was no modeling in the paper at all! So it looks either the paper was never read, or the handling Editor knows so little about Computational Biology that he even confuses its most basic principles. In both cases (not reading or being completely outside the topic) - I doubt he is really in the position to use such strong language.
"While perhaps for specialists (modelers) this study may have particular value, for us it lacks impact as it does not fundamentally change current thinking. We did not see anything unexpected or anything that would lead to a dramatic shift in thinking about pathways, inhibitors, etc. Certainly you provide some interesting insight, but nothing that feel is impactful enough to be reviewed favorably."
And now the fun thing comes: There was no modeling in the paper at all! So it looks either the paper was never read, or the handling Editor knows so little about Computational Biology that he even confuses its most basic principles. In both cases (not reading or being completely outside the topic) - I doubt he is really in the position to use such strong language.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was formulated in general terms that do not warrant a waiting period of half a year.
Motivation:
The review process was excellent, except for the duration of the first review which was really long (almost 18 weeks!). However, at the end of the review process the manuscript was improved a lot.
Motivation:
The process was too long
Motivation:
They offered the possibility for a short communication
Motivation:
The Qualitative Sociology website states that the average time for review is 85 days. This paper took 145 days to be reviewed (that is, almost double of the time expected). Also, after submitting the paper in March, and not having heard from the journal since then, I contacted the journal in late July. I was then told that they had trouble finding scholars working in the field who would agree to review the paper, but in any case I would get feedback by late August. Not having received any feedback, I contacted the journal again in early September. Was then told that the feedback would arrive by mid-October, which it finally did. Two reviewers, while making relevant critiques, were also constructive. One of them says that "This could turn in to a meaningful contribution for Qualitative Sociology"; the other is less enthusiastic, but nonetheless states that "The execution [of the manuscripts] can be revised to meet the expectations raised in the [promising] abstract". The first reviewer, with a more negative tone, says stuff like "the author should have more confidence in his or her work rather than anticipating imaginary criticism". No bother commenting on that.
With 2 reviewers willing to accept revisions, the editor nonetheless chose to reject the paper.
With 2 reviewers willing to accept revisions, the editor nonetheless chose to reject the paper.
Motivation:
We chose this journal in part because the open access fee is much more reasonable than other journals, and we were rewarded with an excellent Editorial staff and publication process. I was impressed by the quality of the reviews, which addressed not only the manuscript but also supplemental information (code documentation). The Editors were quick to respond to inquiry and accommodating about resubmission deadlines and submitting companion papers. The typesetting and publication process was smooth and conducted quickly.