Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth, however the single review was a disappointment.
Motivation:
Waiting 41 days to hear that the manuscript did not even pass the first evaluation is shocking. I can accept that the editor feels the manuscript was out of the scope, but if that's the case, surely this can be detected in less than 41 days. This is an unacceptable waste of time for the authors and for the scientific community.
Motivation:
Desk rejects are always disappointing, but they provided a paragraph to state the reasons and suggested which kind of journals they think are more suited.
Motivation:
It was "accept as is".
Motivation:
They returned the decision letter very quickly. The decision letter made it very clear which points need to be fixed, and which points can be ignored.
Motivation:
The submission was for Express Letters category. I am disappointed that the decision was reject, but the reviews were fair. I revised the paper for a different journal which is more descriptively oriented, and it was eventually accepted.
Motivation:
The answer came exactly three hours after submission
Motivation:
The review process is fast. Even though the manuscript is rejected by editors directly, the response from the editor is quite reasonable and convincing.
Motivation:
The review process is quite long. The editor decided to send out the manuscript for review after two weeks upon initial submission. We received the comments from reviewers 8 weeks later. It seems that the whole process is time consuming and the manuscript tracking system is clumsy.
Motivation:
Taking nearly 6 months to reject a paper without even a referee report seems ridiculous to me.
Motivation:
Takes a bit of time from submission to allocation of manuscript number but very quick review and response
Motivation:
Review process took too long. Second round was not needed. Editor should have been able to make decision with our response to the first round.
Motivation:
Review process was relatively quick (although it missed the editor's target of 2 months by 50%). Once the article was accepted it awaited publication for another 11 months.