Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Review process took a long time. Reviewer suggested rejection because of matters that was not the focus of the paper and were not even major.
6.3 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Took a long time. The reviewer advised rejection while it was possible to address their comments.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not allocated an Editor until the 24th October thus spending nearly four weeks in the system without being considered.
Motivation:
No issues with the way the manuscript was handled by the editor, everything happened in a reasonable timeframe. The quality of the reviews was disappointing though, ranging from questions that do not make sense to asking for in vivo experiments that take >1year to do. A thorough rebuttal letter seems to have worked though.
Motivation:
the review process as a whole happened in a speedy way
the success of review lies in identifying the appropriate editor and referees
the success of review lies in identifying the appropriate editor and referees
Motivation:
It seems the reasons provided for rejection could be immediately conveyed by the editor. The scientific advices provided after that long review period was not worth waiting. I think every author expects that she/he learns something from a rejection especially after several months of waiting.
Motivation:
Very unprofessional way to handle the review process.
Extremely slow (and it is the second time I experienced the same in this journal)
They forgot about sending to reviewers after re-submission.
When I tried to complain by their mail-contact system it came always an automatic anwer with the same sentence....
Extremely slow (and it is the second time I experienced the same in this journal)
They forgot about sending to reviewers after re-submission.
When I tried to complain by their mail-contact system it came always an automatic anwer with the same sentence....
135.1 weeks
135.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I submitted a manuscript on September 26, 2014. As I write today on October 25, 2016, I have not yet received the first round of reviews. Numerous emails to editor, sent out on an average after three months intervals, have been unanswered. Desperate emails to the associate editors have been unanswered. I even contacted elsevier and they have responded that they have contacted the editor. Apart from that nothing has moved. There is not even an option to withdraw the manuscript from the online portal. This is highly unprofessional and unethical on the part of the editor and the journal.
Motivation:
Editor Response: "While the Editors found your manuscript to be of interest, they felt that the inclusion of an in vivo component would greatly strengthen this study."
Motivation:
The submission and review process for Applications in Plant Sciences was efficient and transparent. The website allowed me to track the progress of the manuscript. The reviews were professional and to the point, and helped improve the paper. The editors were helpful and communicative.
Motivation:
The very lenghthy process made it quite frustrating as well that some of the reviewers were not familiar with estimation techniques used and initially rejected the paper. However, the end result may well be that the paper has become a paper which is attuned tot the needs and tastes of the HR field.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected due to not broad enough interest, but the turnaround time was quick and we were given the option to transfer our manuscript to a different journal within the Nature Publishing Group.
Motivation:
The comments provided by the reviewers were good and could help us to revise our paper and enhance the paper quality.
Motivation:
It was directly reviewed by the editor with revisions. The process was smooth and quick.
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.