Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
fast and uncomplicated handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Reviews were ok (however just one of the two reviews was useful to really improve the paper), but the paper was handled in a terribly slow way.
Motivation:
As authors we made a major effort addressing all comments to satisfaction and, as recommended, had an external expert review the manuscript before resubmission. This journal has policy to give authors only one round of revision. In case a (conditional) accept is not reached within that time frame, the editor will reject. In my view, a very fair and good policy.
In case of our paper, one reviewer was satisfied and recommended an accept. However, the other reviewer introduced various new comments that actually pertained to aspects of the manuscript that had not changed relative to the originally submitted version. Hence, this reviewer had withheld comments (probably without any wrong intentions) thereby rendering us unable to anticipate/handle them in the only round of revision that the journal offers. Hence, his/her recommendation to the editor was another revision (albeit that all suggestions were easy fixes).
The editor did not take this into account in decision-making and because one reviewer suggested a revision the paper was rejected.
In case of our paper, one reviewer was satisfied and recommended an accept. However, the other reviewer introduced various new comments that actually pertained to aspects of the manuscript that had not changed relative to the originally submitted version. Hence, this reviewer had withheld comments (probably without any wrong intentions) thereby rendering us unable to anticipate/handle them in the only round of revision that the journal offers. Hence, his/her recommendation to the editor was another revision (albeit that all suggestions were easy fixes).
The editor did not take this into account in decision-making and because one reviewer suggested a revision the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
The reviewer did not consider the technical novelty proposed in the manuscript.
Most of the criticisms on the proof reading are not correct and are due to lack of the reviewer attention. Other typos or reference error are due to the conversion of the word file into pdf.
In summary, there are very few formal errors that are usually corrected during the review process but cannot be causes of rejection.
Most of the criticisms on the proof reading are not correct and are due to lack of the reviewer attention. Other typos or reference error are due to the conversion of the word file into pdf.
In summary, there are very few formal errors that are usually corrected during the review process but cannot be causes of rejection.
Motivation:
The topic was deemed unsuitable for the journal, which I found strange having read the journal's aim and scope beforehand.
Motivation:
Long review process. Editor seemed to, despite positive comments, not dare to accept the manuscript.
Motivation:
Time-saving because of pre-submission inquiry and quick response. Very transparent and fair.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and was finished in a high quality.
Motivation:
During these 66.4 weeks, I haven't received any reply to my e-mails, although I sent emails to ask about the status of my manuscript. On November 2 2015 I sent emails to the Editor, to two different addresses, to inform him that I want to withdraw my manuscript. I haven't received any response to my withdrawn request.
On April 6 2016 I was informed that my accepted manuscript was already transferred to Springer, and I had to contact some unknown Editors from Springer and ask them to contact the Editor from JMC and inform him that my manuscript have been withdrawn.
On April 6 2016 I was informed that my accepted manuscript was already transferred to Springer, and I had to contact some unknown Editors from Springer and ask them to contact the Editor from JMC and inform him that my manuscript have been withdrawn.
Motivation:
(1) It takes super long time to get response from the journal and the reviewing results (more than half a year).
(2) The comments given by the reviewers were, to my opinion, not professional enough. They do not understand the design of our field experiments, but they didn't even ask us to explain the reason of the design but just said it's not realistic and reject. Another example is, one reviewer criticized we didn't include energy consumption of irrigation at farm in our energy balance and required us to recalculate the whole balance. But we didn't use irrigation at the farm at all.
Overall speaking, my experience with Journal of Environmental Management this time was not good. However, we still learned something from the experience.
(2) The comments given by the reviewers were, to my opinion, not professional enough. They do not understand the design of our field experiments, but they didn't even ask us to explain the reason of the design but just said it's not realistic and reject. Another example is, one reviewer criticized we didn't include energy consumption of irrigation at farm in our energy balance and required us to recalculate the whole balance. But we didn't use irrigation at the farm at all.
Overall speaking, my experience with Journal of Environmental Management this time was not good. However, we still learned something from the experience.
Motivation:
Both reviews were detailed and extensive, and improved the manuscript significantly.
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected (not fitting to the journal's objectives completely), the rejection was fast. This enabled me to prepare the manuscript and submit it to another journal quickly, which I appreciate.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected immediately, it needed improvement according to the editor. We submitted another manuscript to this journal, and noticed, that the editor immediately rejected that one too, for the very same reason. After we changed some minor details of the manuscript, the paper was then considered for review, and was accepted after first review.
Throughout the whole process, the editor was suggesting different papers we should cite, was giving comments on figures (e.g. make the figures fit in one column, which we did, however at the end the figures were printed in two columns), and other remarks. We found this awkward, as we have not seen this level of involvement of an editor so far - especially in terms of suggesting new and new references (also his, or from the editorial board).
Throughout the whole process, the editor was suggesting different papers we should cite, was giving comments on figures (e.g. make the figures fit in one column, which we did, however at the end the figures were printed in two columns), and other remarks. We found this awkward, as we have not seen this level of involvement of an editor so far - especially in terms of suggesting new and new references (also his, or from the editorial board).
Motivation:
Got very quick outright rejection from the Schaefer office with one referee being positive and the other referee being negative. The negative referee put a few criticisms which contradict to the present state of the field. I would rate this review as rather non-professional. The editor decided to blindly follow onr of the referes and reject the manuscript.
We filed a quick appeal and resubmitted to the same journal.
We filed a quick appeal and resubmitted to the same journal.