Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
After a 10 day review, the MS was rejected on the basis of a lack of mechanistic data. No other feedback was provided and therefore, the entire process was not very helpful.
Motivation:
The article was not not taken into consideration by the editorial board because of its inconsistency with the main topics of journal (this answer I received from the editorial board). I do not agree with this. I believe that the article should be sent to the external reviewers.
Motivation:
-2 Reviewers out of 3 came with subjective statements, not scientifically sound. Some statements were even not related to the content of the paper.
-Appeal was introduced, we had to wait for 6 months before this was processed 'because NPG lost the editor'. Then, after appeal was accepted reviewing process took again 3 months, it ended up with the fact that the paper was sent back to the 3 initial reviewers, one of them refused to read again, and clearly, the editor did even not read our arguments.
-Very poor communication with NPG.
-According to a reviewer "his paper does not merit the high profile and sales pitch it is aiming for by being published in a Scientific Reports"
In other words: Sci Rep has to make money!
-Appeal was introduced, we had to wait for 6 months before this was processed 'because NPG lost the editor'. Then, after appeal was accepted reviewing process took again 3 months, it ended up with the fact that the paper was sent back to the 3 initial reviewers, one of them refused to read again, and clearly, the editor did even not read our arguments.
-Very poor communication with NPG.
-According to a reviewer "his paper does not merit the high profile and sales pitch it is aiming for by being published in a Scientific Reports"
In other words: Sci Rep has to make money!
Motivation:
The Editor offered a transfer of the manuscript to another Journal for submission
Motivation:
Seven weeks is very long time for making a decision on the manuscript which is not fit for the journal by an editorial board without being sent to external review.
Motivation:
Very much satisfactory.
Motivation:
Very satisfactory
Motivation:
The journal editor handled the manuscript well and swift. However I feel that the review was a bit shallow and did not help us improve the manuscript
Motivation:
A very fast journal, authors can also get constructive comments from the reviewers. I will recommend it to people who don't like to wait for the long reviewing process.
Motivation:
While it seems the reviewers pointed out legitimate and correctable concerns (most of them would even considered as minor), the decision was to reject. While it is the absolute prerogative of the editor to reject, it seems pity that the process of rejection took almost 3 month, despite favorable reviews,
Motivation:
The review time was very long. There was significant scope for resubmission. The suggested modifications were doable and would have made the MS appropriate for publication.
Motivation:
Lengthy process for a short paper.
Motivation:
Clearly, the editor read the paper and made sound comments.
Motivation:
I really liked that the editor in chief was in direct contact with me, informing me of the review and editorial activities. The feedback was quick and I was kept up to date throughout the process. I was expecting to receive the comments of two reviewers rather than one. However, the comments of the reviewer was really constructive and contributed into the quality of my paper.
Motivation:
Two Referees recommended revision. The third one commented "Mechanism is speculative" To some extent all mechanisms are speculative! The advantage of using staring material was overlooked by referee. He wrote following
Significance: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Novelty: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Broad Interest: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Has excellent/average to be interpretted seperately for each journal
Significance: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Novelty: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Broad Interest: Average (not suitable for Organometallics)
Has excellent/average to be interpretted seperately for each journal
Motivation:
Although the editor wrote that the manuscript was sent to reviewers, I suspect this was not so.
Ref #1 wrote: "in view of the contents and formats (such as the format of references), I do not believe that RSC advances is an appropriate journal for its publication. I suggest that you submit the manuscript to a specialized journal" This is a remark of a technical editor and not a competent review.
Ref#2 wrote: "This manuscript aimed to develop a new algorithm to achieve accurate evaluation of experimental data. However, all the language and writings seem too specialized to understand by the general readers. I noticed that the authors took the example of sensory testing to introduce the algorithm."
Again, this info confirms the editor's decision "out of scope". Whether the decision was first and then a justification was written is unknown.
Unfortunately there is no way to check the editorial process. The referees do not seem to be independent from the editor.
Ref #1 wrote: "in view of the contents and formats (such as the format of references), I do not believe that RSC advances is an appropriate journal for its publication. I suggest that you submit the manuscript to a specialized journal" This is a remark of a technical editor and not a competent review.
Ref#2 wrote: "This manuscript aimed to develop a new algorithm to achieve accurate evaluation of experimental data. However, all the language and writings seem too specialized to understand by the general readers. I noticed that the authors took the example of sensory testing to introduce the algorithm."
Again, this info confirms the editor's decision "out of scope". Whether the decision was first and then a justification was written is unknown.
Unfortunately there is no way to check the editorial process. The referees do not seem to be independent from the editor.