Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Manuscript was significantly improved due to suggestions from reviewers and Editor. I was thankful to receive such high-quality suggestions. However, the entire manuscript handling process takes too long! For each round the manuscript is sent out for review, I waited for approximately 2-2.5 months to hear back from Editor (manuscript was sent to reviewers twice). After acceptance notice, I waited 6 weeks to finally see manuscript in online print (returned comments on proofs within 3 days). For the ~5500EUR publication fee, I would expect swifter turn around.
Motivation:
Very fast and encouraging review process. Reviewer comments were most helpful and educational.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were helpful in some ways. However there was a worrying lack of statistical knowledge (the request I used of mean and standard deviation when the data was not normally distributed) which is concerning.
Motivation:
Five months (!!) after sending the manuscript to this journal we got it back rejected with the comment that they could not find any reviewers. Very strange, especially since the next journal we sent the same manuscript to found three reviewers within a couple of weeks...
Motivation:
Extremely fast rejection process. This was great, we did not think they would accept our paper since the research area is very narrow, but still wanted to try and were thankful for their quick reply which made it possible for us to send it to another journal already the week after.
Motivation:
Fast Review.
Rejection by editor took 4-7 days sometime short
If reviewed decisions will be given in 20-30 days
Rejection by editor took 4-7 days sometime short
If reviewed decisions will be given in 20-30 days
Motivation:
Journal of Material Chemistry A has quick response good manuscript tracking system and professional reviewer. In mots of the cases if they review the manuscript the will give you decision within 20-30 days. If the editor rejects the manuscript it may take 4-7 days.
Motivation:
Fast and polite handling of submission, no online submission system exists.
Motivation:
The decision was not in line wth the reviewers comments. The reviewers seemed to suggest some revisions but seemed interested. The journal rejected citing "quality of the manuscript, its appropriateness for the journal, and its level of interest to our general readership" and suggested transfer to a sister journal Open Forum for Infectious Diseases
Motivation:
The third reviewer was not objective. Journal has one round revision policy so after the reviewer raised not feasible issues/experiments after resubmission, we do not have an possibility to react.
Motivation:
Exorbitant submission fee, no replies to inquiries, article reviewed by associate editor and editorial report justifying rejection was superficial and useless despite retaining the article for more than 10 months.
Motivation:
Only after several reminders did the journal realise that their handling editor had resigned. The new editor provided no comments to the final decision, even though the reviews were mixed. One of the reviews was insightful and provided valuable comments, the other reviewer had critique that was not really relevant to the paper.
Motivation:
One month to say: "The Journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article’s perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted."
Motivation:
Process a bit long, apparently due to reviewer mobilization. Manuscript initially submitted to the journal three months before, and proposal was made by the editor to perform some experiments before sending it to review. Good contact with the editor though.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
Some experiments or adjustments in the text could have been easily performed. The absence of proposal for revision is thus disappointing.
Motivation:
We experienced serious delays and issues during the review process, raising serious concerns about the reliability and overall quality of the journal.
The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".
After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.
After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
The first review round took 2.5 months. The revised version of our manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2017. Then, our understanding was that the manuscript passed the technical check and was submitted to the Academic Editor (likely the same who revised the paper the first time). In fact, the status of the manuscript in the editorial manager changed from "Manuscript submitted to the journal" to "With the Editor".
After two months, we asked an update on the revision status and we were told that our manuscript was "currently being sent out for assignment to an Academic Editor" (a different one?). After that, the status returned to "Manuscript submitted to the journal" and remained the same for 30 days.
After three months from the new submission, the Editorial Office failed to find an Academic
Editor and eventually stopped replying to our emails. Therefore, although all the requests from the reviewers were addressed properly, we decided to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration by the journal.
Motivation:
There was a long wait just for one reviewer to look over the revisions. Many emails had to be sent to the editorial office in order to get status updates.
Motivation:
The review process was okay, but after acceptance something went wrong technically with the Elsevier system, and the last version of my article was lost in cyberspace. It took me many phonecalls (to India) and e-mails with the publisher's office to set it straight.
Motivation:
Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were good and relevant, but no clear reason was given for the rejection, as the shortcomings mentioned would have been easy to fix.