Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Extremely fast
Motivation:
This was my first major journal submission and the editor and reviewers were extremely helpful and polite.
Motivation:
The reviews were quite substantial and provided after a very short period of time. The desired changes to the manuscript were clearly summarized so that we could address them rather quickly, although quite a lot was demanded.
Motivation:
It took to my opinion unacceptable long till reviewers had been asigned and reviews arrived. Editors managed to receive one review only. The review suffered from major ill-interpretation of our results. I informed the editors about the shortcomings of the review and asked them to inform the reviewer and to reconsider their decision (rejection) based on my explanations by which I rectified our approach. The editors told me that they will take care of my "problem". However, I never got an answer. Our mansucript virtually disappeared. This is certainly a terrible way to deal with the work and ideas of ours. I appreciate the scirev-initiative since I feel often rightless in light of such kind of arbitrainess.
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the advices of the reviewers hepled me improve my work and I learned much from the review process
The review process of this journal was timely, accurate and instructive.
The review process of this journal was timely, accurate and instructive.
Motivation:
Reviews were sent back reasonably fast. They were thorough, fair and provided useful comments. Enough time to revise the manuscript was alotted for each revision round (60 days).
Motivation:
Both reviewers were very helpful and constructive. Their reports helped make a substantial revision to the original manuscript. I recommend researchers in the field of education choose this journal for submitting their manuscript.
Motivation:
My experience with Language Learning was the best. The feedback from the reviewers and especially from the editor were very helpful
Motivation:
Reasonable time for turnaround, motives for rejection are clear.
Motivation:
Long turnaround, there was a long wait period until it was sent for review. Although the manuscript advertised short review times, it took a total of 3 months. One of the reviewers also rejected with blank statements of non-novelty without providing evidence/citations. Very frustrating.
Motivation:
The peer review system of Applied Soft Computing is exceptionally bad. First, the associate editor has much power on the editorial decisions. My paper was undergone 3 major revisions. At the end of this, the 2 reviewers (of earlier cycle) stated that the points are properly addressed. However, the associate editor reported that "he has not yet satisfied with the revision". In order to reject the paper, he send the paper to a completely different reviewer . In addition, the Editor or associate editor never replied to any of my messages. It was a totally frustrating experience.
Motivation:
The paper was sent out for review 2 times and then rejected. The second round of reviews were very favorable (they were easy to address for another journal), but it was rejected for a reason that was unclear (after about 1.5 years of review)
Motivation:
I have been very satisfied with handling, processing, and review of manuscripts with Applications in Plant Sciences. The editorial staff is very communicative and reviews are responsive and thorough. Internal and outside reviewers were well selected and provided comments that greatly improved my manuscript. The staff has worked with me to improve style and layout of figures and tables that greatly improves the visual presentation of the content. The editorial staff also regularly promotes published content for broader dissemination in professional and social media.
Motivation:
Editors and reviewers know the topic quite well
30.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After 6 months we got two reviews saying that the paper is very good, but both proposed to reject it as too specialized
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 456.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The journal did not react to my mail during several months, then they answered that the referee does not respond to their mails for more than 6 months. We decided to withdraw the submission (after a wating time of 15 months).
Motivation:
Good experience overall
Motivation:
eLife promises to work on initial submissions within a week. It took a month. They also adversitse their Journal with a 'painless' review process. Then the paper was rejected with the following (very dismissive) )sentence:
"While perhaps for specialists (modelers) this study may have particular value, for us it lacks impact as it does not fundamentally change current thinking. We did not see anything unexpected or anything that would lead to a dramatic shift in thinking about pathways, inhibitors, etc. Certainly you provide some interesting insight, but nothing that feel is impactful enough to be reviewed favorably."
And now the fun thing comes: There was no modeling in the paper at all! So it looks either the paper was never read, or the handling Editor knows so little about Computational Biology that he even confuses its most basic principles. In both cases (not reading or being completely outside the topic) - I doubt he is really in the position to use such strong language.
"While perhaps for specialists (modelers) this study may have particular value, for us it lacks impact as it does not fundamentally change current thinking. We did not see anything unexpected or anything that would lead to a dramatic shift in thinking about pathways, inhibitors, etc. Certainly you provide some interesting insight, but nothing that feel is impactful enough to be reviewed favorably."
And now the fun thing comes: There was no modeling in the paper at all! So it looks either the paper was never read, or the handling Editor knows so little about Computational Biology that he even confuses its most basic principles. In both cases (not reading or being completely outside the topic) - I doubt he is really in the position to use such strong language.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was formulated in general terms that do not warrant a waiting period of half a year.