Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review comment showed that the paper has been investigated by the professional expert in the topic of the paper. Their constructive comments help us to enhance the paper quality greatly.
Motivation:
I feel that waiting over one year for a rejection and not getting a review is not appropriate.
Motivation:
I received three reviews. Two were very enthusiastic suggesting accepting the manuscript after minor revisions, the third was more critical, pointing to problems and missing points that were actually addressed in the manuscript.
Motivation:
The actual review process was fine but the editorial handling of our manuscript was not as I would expect it from a journal that is "commited to rapid editorial decisions and publications" as stated in Nature's peer-review policy. The decision on our second revision was "Accept after minor changes" which only included to ensure that the manuscript does fit within the guidelines. As our manuscript was already formatted according to the guidelines, we stated this in our answer letter and submitted the manuscript again without changing a single sentence in the manuscript itself. Nevertheless, the editor needed again more than two months to accept our manuscript. In addition, during the first four weeks after acceptance nothing happend at all until I asked them when we will receive our proofs. Only after this inquiry I received another e-mail stating that our manuscript had now been passed to the production which needed again roughly two months to finally publish our article. All in all, I was fairly disappointed about the manuscript handling of such a prestigious journal.
Motivation:
Initial review a bit long. Constructive comments however that substantially improved the paper.
Motivation:
Almost 4 weeks to immediate rejection, with generic rejection message (manuscript not given sufficiently high priority during the initial screening process).
Motivation:
Professional editorial process and expert reviewers. I would recommend JCD.
Motivation:
Review process on For Ecol Manage is generally fast. The first Editor assessment is very fast, less than a week. You are informed about the review steps, and have the feeling that editorial work is really fast.
Motivation:
I thought the review cycles were fairly rapid. I found the comments from the first round of reviews to be thoughtful and pertinent, and although additional experiments were required to address the reviewers' comments, those additional experiments substantially improved the manuscript. Overall, I thought the reviewing editor did an excellent job in handling this manuscript throughout the review process.
Motivation:
Fast turnaround, and the reasons for rejection were stated clearly. Although we would have preferred a different outcome, the process was painless and fair.
Motivation:
The paper was under review for almost six months and we only received the comments from one reviewer. Those were good but it was not the speedy review process we had expected. The editorial office was then super quick to make a decision.
Motivation:
The revision process was very smooth and very quick. I highly recommend this journal
Motivation:
The first review round took slightly longer than promises, otherwise perfect.
Motivation:
44 weeks for knowing that the paper is rejected!
Motivation:
I will do my best！
Motivation:
Unetical and bad practices: lack of respect for the reviewer who accepted our modified version. Here is his/her only comment:
Reviewer’s Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1.
1. The authors did well in addressing the reviewer's request for clarification and including a more recent and relevant discussion of the gaps in the literature. Further, the authors adequately addressed questions on statistical analyses and methodology.
Reviewer’s Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1.
1. The authors did well in addressing the reviewer's request for clarification and including a more recent and relevant discussion of the gaps in the literature. Further, the authors adequately addressed questions on statistical analyses and methodology.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 82.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
First submission was a desk reject because editor claimed it did not meet the subjects published in the journal. After pointing out editor's mistake (the terms and scope clearly favored the subject I was writing about) I was allowed to resubmit. Paper then sat in queue without being touched for nearly three months. Attempted to contact editor three times - no response. Withdrawn,
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected without review. It took the journal quite a while to make this decision (just over 2 weeks). However, the submission process was relatively straightforward.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast
Motivation:
The topic I discussed was very specific, which made it difficult to find reviewers. The review process was very constructive and it really improved my manuscript.
Motivation:
The revised manuscript was not sent out to the same reviewers even though we feel that we had addressed all the concerns raised by the original reviewers. The new reviewer had very short comments in one paragraph for the basis of his/her rejection.
Motivation:
This is the second time I submitted the paper to this journal and the decision was "accept".
The main issue is that the scope of the journal is very specific and authors should stick strictly to the requirements. If manuscript is well written, pre-edited (in our case it was needed) by native English-speaker and is interesting enough, there are high chances to be published. We have a very positive experience with this journal, but we invested a lot of time and effort to prepare the manuscript in "proper way". Good luck!
The main issue is that the scope of the journal is very specific and authors should stick strictly to the requirements. If manuscript is well written, pre-edited (in our case it was needed) by native English-speaker and is interesting enough, there are high chances to be published. We have a very positive experience with this journal, but we invested a lot of time and effort to prepare the manuscript in "proper way". Good luck!
Motivation:
Fast enough, constructive comments.
Motivation:
The main concern of the reviewers was the statistical power of our reported experiments. The manuscript included open data (and materials), so it was directly possible for the editor and both reviewers to confirm their suspicion. Alas, this did not happen. When I resubmited the paper to another journal, I made sure to include the observed power in the corresponding data analysis paragraph of my manuscript. Median power was .94.
The editor rejected the paper for the above-stated reason and because "the manuscript does not fit the theme of the journal". Needless to say, this was not a positive review experience for me. Apart from this major flaw, the reviews were short and without much substance, although they pointed out some interesting references to me. This is why I avoided the minimum rating of 0.
The editor rejected the paper for the above-stated reason and because "the manuscript does not fit the theme of the journal". Needless to say, this was not a positive review experience for me. Apart from this major flaw, the reviews were short and without much substance, although they pointed out some interesting references to me. This is why I avoided the minimum rating of 0.