Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The dates entered in this review are approximate. The start and end are correct, which gives a total time of over 2 years for the review of the manuscript. This process was the worst I have experienced. The reviewers asked for one set of changes, and we addressed all of the their concerns. They did not indicate that we did not, but they returned with a second set of NEW criticisms and the editor did not want to give us an opportunity to address them. We found this absolutely outrageous and requested the opportunity to actually address the new criticisms before a final decision was made. This was allowed, but the reviewers sat on the manuscript for another year before agreeing that their concerns had actually been addressed. The review process was slow, arbitrary, and held hostage by one reviewer. The editor should have moved on and sought other reviewers when it became clear that the reviewer was using a passive-aggressive tactic to simply slow down the publication process (for no clear reason since we clearly addressed all concerns raised).
Motivation:
Had a bad experience. Although, the paper was rejected after long time, I could not get comments for improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
I am sure the paper was coming under the scope of the journal, but, EIC suggested to submit it to another journal of Elsevier publisher.
Motivation:
n/a
Motivation:
I had to thoroughly revise, but do believe that the manuscript improved a lot through the review process. All in all, reviews were fair and useful. The first two review rounds could have been a bit faster in my opinion. I note that this took place during a change of editors for this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and received comments relevant.
Motivation:
Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
Motivation:
Editor asked ME why I didn't 'remind him' that the paper was under review. Editor didn't bother commenting, and submitted one rather odd review, that he had sat on for many months, as cause for the rejection.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewer #1: The paper may be accepted for publication by considering the following points
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Motivation:
After 10 months of review process they rejected the paper only with one reviewer comments and the reason was this :"conceptual novelty and thematic balance of the research published in the journal as well as the limitation in number of pages permitted yearly by the publisher"
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)