Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
They were efficient and sent a lot of feedback but the first reasons listed for reject were focused on failing to conform completely to APA style & then ideological differences - the latter is unacceptable and the former tends to happen when reviewers don't have more substantive comments to make.
Motivation:
The reviews were very long, but sadly at the same time not very helpful and at some points it was even evident that the reviewers did not really understand the experiments (which of course could be a result of bad writing!). The decision to reject the manuscript basically boiled down to "the topic is not interesting enough for our journal", which to me is always a very subjective and suboptimal decision criterion. Since the editor did not add anything to the review process, the reviewers get a slightly better rating than the overall experience. But of course the journal is not to blame for the habits of one person and this should not affect your decision to submit your work to this outlet.
Motivation:
The decision not to send out the manuscript was well motivated, but the fact that it took over 4 weeks to "desk reject" a paper seems quite long. To be fair, JEP:G gets a lot of submissions and this might have been bad luck.
Motivation:
This is my best yet publishing experience. Very professional, on time, and with e-mail (and reminders) from the editorial office on the whereabouts of the manuscript. Special congrats to the Action Editor on her timely and supportive decision letters.
Motivation:
Fast review process, fair and polite reviewers.
Motivation:
Straightforward process, useful reviews and overall a painless process.
Motivation:
Nine months for having a rejection!
Motivation:
The paper has been submitted to reviewers and I received only comments from one reviewer and the comments of the editor. The editor decide to reject the paper for the following reason: 'This is not one of the application focuses of ISA Trans. There are number of journals in this area, as listed in References in the paper. The authors may consider to submit the paper to one of these journals'.
-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.
-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
The revision process was fast and problems were solved with the support of the journals office.
Motivation:
We responded to EVERY comment made by the reviewers with new data. One of the reviewers made a serious error in their review of the manuscript and new data; they did not read it. I appealed to the editor to examine it. The editor make me wait two additional weeks, then told me "they do not overturn reviewers decisions". I asked the editor if she read the reviewer's comments. I never got a response.
Motivation:
Got good reviews that provided good direction for revising the manuscript. The reviews I got after the revision reflected more the personal beliefs of the editor and his hand-selected new reviewers than anything objective. I will never submit anything to this journal again.
Motivation:
The review process was slow, but received comments very good.