Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
As always, Poetics has very good reviewers (also the editor gave a lot of very good feedback). But the review process is OH SO SLOW!
Motivation:
Very ridiculous reason to reject the paper. The reason was that my paper was based on a single country. Basically EJPR just want cross-national studies which are more likely to be cited in the future. EJPR used to be about interesting research, now it's just citation-hunting and the journal is going downhill...
Motivation:
Good review procedure, without delays. (also very fast publication after acceptance)
Motivation:
The two reviews were very different (positive and negative), and the editor based his decision on the negative one. The positive review was very detailed and extremely helpful.
Motivation:
The whole review process took too long. In the resubmission of the manuscript (where extensive changes were made), the editor said that he received two conflicting reviews, one reviewer was satisfied with the changes, the other acknowledged the changes but thought it was still not ready for publication. This whole process took almost a year and it would be good to have an input earlier on.
Motivation:
The reviews were poor quality. I had one reviewer who only wrote a single sentence. Another reviewer during the first round of reviews made untrue assumptions about what was in my publicly available, well known data set. After I corrected him/her in the response to reviewers, that reviewer continued asking me to do analyses for data I didn't have!
Motivation:
IEEE TAP is rigorous and prestigous journal. Most researchers consider it as the ultimate research venue for antenna & EM research.
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal
It is very difficult to publish anything in the journal
Motivation:
Courteous letter explaining that the editors do not see the article as a good fit for the journal.
Motivation:
Good turnaround times. Always informed, positive and respectful tone.
Motivation:
It took some time to the editor to look into the manuscript and take a decision. It was expected to get a rejection from PNAS not because the work is not novel rather it was hard to find a suitable editor from the list of NAS members available on their website (who can be a right fit to review the work). Therefore, we suggested the names of few people to act as guest editor, however we think that they did not consider our request.
Motivation:
While the referee was extremely positive, the editor decided to reject anyway (apparently the article was just not to her taste). This has happened a number of times for the journal and it makes me not want to referee for them - if the editor is going to make a decision that overturns that of the referee anyway, what's the point?
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
a long time to the first decision; the editor decision was reject with the possibility of resubmission, which I consider as a bad practice of some journals to boost their indexes; after two months we resubmitted our revised MS to the same journal and our paper was published
Motivation:
the handling time was fair, the review report was a high quality with many excelent suggestions
Motivation:
Judging from the editorial manager system, it already took a month until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Eventually, only one of two submitted a review, the gist of which was that the manuscript is not suited for the journal. Overall I think the whole process took way too long. The editor should have been able to either make a decision about the suitability of the manuscript before sending it out to reviewers, or be more strict about review deadlines. Waiting almost four months for a response just cost us a lot of time that we could have used more efficiently by submitting to another journal.