Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Criteria for suitability to Nature are not clear, speaking seriously.
Motivation:
A general "low-urgency" response template. No details.
Motivation:
Nothing more to say. All was very smooth and reasonable
Motivation:
It simply took too long time.
Motivation:
One reviewer who obviously had an axe to grind advised against accepting the manuscript. The other two reviewers requested a minor revision. The editor sided with the horrible reviewer but did not provide a rationale for doing so.
Motivation:
In general, it was a worth experience, except the time elapsed for the first decision. Furthermore, one of the reviewers, in my opinion, was incisive in excess, including irrelevant comments e.g. to use 2cm instead 20mm, eight instead 8, and so on. This kind of revisions don't contributed at all to improve the manuscript but difficulted the solutions of mistakes and delayed the publications of scientific results.
Motivation:
It was six weeks before the editor sent the paper out for review. Eight months later, I still did not have a decision. None of my inquiries received a response. Finally, I wrote and said that I intended to withdraw my paper if I did not hear anything within a week. Days later I received an acceptance.
Motivation:
Review process was fair. Editor's treatment quite friendly and objective.
Motivation:
The matter of discontent is that the editor, surely, is in his right to to consider the paper to be out of the scope of his journal, but to take more than 4 months to arrive at this conclusion is toooooooo much
Motivation:
Unfair consideration by the Assistant Editor whose reasons for rejection were: (1) "the initial scrutiny of your manuscript has revealed that your manuscript has a very limited scope for our journal", which was quite surprising, because the journal has specific rubric on the issue; (2) "it has not been formatted properly according to author's guidelines", which was the height because the manuscript was prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines point by point.
Motivation:
The review process was fairly smooth. I have only few problems with one of the reviewer tha in my opinion was not a great expert in the field of the manuscript
Motivation:
Most of the reviewers' comments were useful and helped improving the quality of the accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
It was a good experience for me to submit and follow my manuscript with this journal
Motivation:
It was amazing. Before the submit my article, the proof-reading was done. I think that it was a good choice.
Motivation:
The expertise and speed with which my paper was processed by Development in Practice (DiP) were commendable