Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The objections raised in the initial review round were mostly fair though it was clear from the comments that one of the reviewers was not an expert in the field. After addressing the objections raised in the initial review, that reviewer simply didn't bother reading our revised manuscript and just repeated the same objections in the second review round. In our response we pointed out that the reviewer's objections were already previously addressed and even mentioned it to the editor. However, the editor chose to reject the manuscript based on that reviewer's comments. A subsequent appeal was also rejected because the original reviewer declined to look at the manuscript again.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
Motivation:
Reasonably good reviewing and management times. Reviewers comments were of good quality and contributed to improve the final version of the work.
Motivation:
Fair process. Proposition to resubmit if new data could be added regarding the editor's comments.
Motivation:
Our reason for withdrawing the article was that for more than 3 months
the editor was not able to find any reviewer to read our paper.
the editor was not able to find any reviewer to read our paper.
Motivation:
This journal was the 4th journal we submitted the paper to. So, it already have been through 2 reviews in other journals. We adjusted the paper each time. Therefore, we understand why the reviewers did not write any significant suggestions. The editor also addressed the manuscript. His review was very vague since he asked us to go through all the journal's guidelines. We did it, but we were not sure what was expected of us. It would be helpful if the editor was more specific. Nevertheless he was very nice to us and the article was accepted.
Motivation:
The review times were excellent. As a downside, the editor sent the paper for external reviews even for a very small corrections that he could have accepted by himself.
Motivation:
This journal was very good to work with and the reviewers' and editors' comments were very helpful in creating a stronger article. The editorial team was very responsive to inquiries about the process, as well as the timeline of review, along with other inquiries. The only thing that was slow was waiting for the initial editorial and peer reviews and decision from the time of the first submission. Once we received reviews and feedback, however, the process was quite quick and the amount of time given by the editorial team for revisions was generous (4 weeks).
Motivation:
The comments were in general very relevant and will contribute to a future version of the paper.
Motivation:
Fast review process, very fair reviews and comments from the editor, no page charges, high visibility (open access) - I strongly recommend submissions to this journal.
Motivation:
The editor failed to find reviewers for this paper. This is quite different from my previous experience with the same journal (and editor), and odd given that the journal recently published an article on a similar topic, and other journals where we tried before did not have this problem. For various reasons we thought that SSQ would be most suited to reach the audience we targeted with this paper, but it did not happen.
Motivation:
The editor replied exactly as:
Thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Clinical Nursing. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to the design and submission of your article.
Unfortunately, after careful consideration and thorough review, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in our journal. We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, however, we think your paper could be a candidate for potential publication in Nursing Open, a peer-reviewed, open access journal providing rapid publication of high-quality research on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy.
To learn more about Nursing Open, please go to www.nursingopenjournal.com. Nursing Open aims to provide feedback within 5 weeks of submission.
If you would like to accept or decline to transfer your manuscript to Nursing Open, please click the appropriate link below:
Accept transfer:
*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***
...etc.
My points: 1. Review comments were favourable, thus I did not see any reason why to reject the MS.
2. A recommended journal Nursing Open require payments (2,000 USD) for publication. My opinion is that JCN makes their own business by rejecting papers and asking money from disappointed authors. Of course, I disagreed with this possibility and I do not recommend any submissions to this journal.
Thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Clinical Nursing. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to the design and submission of your article.
Unfortunately, after careful consideration and thorough review, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in our journal. We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, however, we think your paper could be a candidate for potential publication in Nursing Open, a peer-reviewed, open access journal providing rapid publication of high-quality research on all aspects of nursing and midwifery practice, research, education and policy.
To learn more about Nursing Open, please go to www.nursingopenjournal.com. Nursing Open aims to provide feedback within 5 weeks of submission.
If you would like to accept or decline to transfer your manuscript to Nursing Open, please click the appropriate link below:
Accept transfer:
*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***
...etc.
My points: 1. Review comments were favourable, thus I did not see any reason why to reject the MS.
2. A recommended journal Nursing Open require payments (2,000 USD) for publication. My opinion is that JCN makes their own business by rejecting papers and asking money from disappointed authors. Of course, I disagreed with this possibility and I do not recommend any submissions to this journal.
Motivation:
Overall, the quality of peer-review is good. After submitted and passed the editorial screening, the manuscript was immediately sent to external reviewers. The online submission system clearly identified the progress of the paper, and the editor responses for the inquiry are also quite fast. The only problem was probably the reviewers' delay to send the review back to editors, and it might be case-specific.
Motivation:
The editorial assistant informed me that the editors deemed the article 'too technical' and hence more suited for a more 'specialised' journal. In general, this is a perfectly understandable explanation—provided, of course, that the statement can be backed up by the journal's track record, consistency, let alone recent publishing history. Even a cursory look through HTR volumes published last five years one may note several much more 'technical' articles, such that the editors' decision not to submit the paper to further peer-review process seems to have been done on a whim and hence unscientific.
Motivation:
Review process was fast, and the comments from reviewers were reasonable.
Motivation:
The first review process was quite long, due to one of the external reviewers being very late in his reply.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
Motivation:
Review process was good at keeping us informed and editor comments were helpful. The journal provided a summary of reviewer comments rather than the raw comments which was helpful to know what the editor found important but I would also like to have seen the original reviewer comments. Response time was very good. I was not aware that they required a reviewer recommendation from countries other than any author affiliated countries, so that could be clarified in their system.
Motivation:
The time it took for an immediate rejection without review (3.6 weeks) seems unreasonably long.
Motivation:
Given that Christmas and New Year comprised the initial review period, and four reviewers provided comments, the initial review was timely. The comments from one reviewer were extensive, but they did help to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Article was handled professionally and promptly, but rejection was based on a reviewer report that showed lack of familiarity with the article's subject.
Motivation:
My only objective to the whole experience is that the rejection by the editor should be much faster, and not take 4 months!
Motivation:
The review process was reasonably fast. in particular the decision was super fast after we re-submitted the revision
Motivation:
very quick review process and very quick decision following resubmission
Motivation:
Reviews were constructive and useful and I really like the journal. My only wish was that the initial review process would be a lot quicker. It took 20 weeks to hear back after the first submission. This is for graduate students and postdocs too long, and not desirable for those for whom publication pressure is not that high either.
Motivation:
The reviewers' feedback was much delayed and the follow-up and feedback from the editorial manager's part was very slow and poor
Motivation:
With referring to the editor's comment, I would like to add that we have cited at least two papers on the same exact topic and "site specific" from the same country published by this journal a year before.
Motivation:
Seven months wait for one unnecessarily mean and obnoxious review. At least the editor picked a referee who appeared somewhat competent in the subject matter. Do not send to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was surprisingly smooth, with a quick turnaround time. However, upon resubmitting the paper with major revisions, two of the three reviewers recommended immediate publication. One of the reviewers was till unhappy with the manuscript and did not have any real concrete suggestions or comments to improve the manuscript. He/She wanted us to redo some experiments that had already been published -- which involved cell cultures of 21 days, and hence the delay in the second resubmission. Other than this issue, we were satisfied with the review process.