Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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 Withdrawn,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.
Motivation:
The article was rejected because "it mainly contained replications of previous work", which of course is a very archaic reason for rejection in the year 2016. Other than that, the desk rejection was quickly handled.
I have no reason to discourage submissions of exclusively original works to PSPB, but apparantly works containing replications (note that our manuscript also contained novel contributions to the literature) are not welcome there and I would strongly suggest to submit them elsewhere.
I have no reason to discourage submissions of exclusively original works to PSPB, but apparantly works containing replications (note that our manuscript also contained novel contributions to the literature) are not welcome there and I would strongly suggest to submit them elsewhere.
Motivation:
Although both reviewers were quite enthusiastic about this manuscript, one of them stated that the presented effects were rather small. The editor based his rejection solely on this fact.
The reviews themselves were quite elaborate and very helpful to improve the manuscript and they were completed rather quickly.
The reviews themselves were quite elaborate and very helpful to improve the manuscript and they were completed rather quickly.
Motivation:
We already had the suspicion that the topic might be unusual for this outlet, so the desk reject was kind of expected. The editor handled the manuscript swiftly, especially given the many submissions to this outlet.
Motivation:
The editor did an exceptional job and summarized all four review reports very nicely for us. The reviews, for the most part, were also very helpful, suggesting theoretical as well as methodological imrovements that found their way into the eventually published version of this manuscript.
One review, however, was outright offensive ("I have no idea how someone could stufy this in the first place") and contained little substance. Since this seems to be a reviewer characterstic rather than a journal characteristic, the overall experience was still good, albeit it took quite a while to get the reviews.
One review, however, was outright offensive ("I have no idea how someone could stufy this in the first place") and contained little substance. Since this seems to be a reviewer characterstic rather than a journal characteristic, the overall experience was still good, albeit it took quite a while to get the reviews.
Motivation:
In general, asking only one reviewer may not be enough for ensuring the quality of a paper. However, in this particular case the review received was very good and considerably improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took more time that I was expecting! One reviewer made good comments.
Motivation:
Not enough novelty for the editor. Fast and well justified though.
Motivation:
Very fast process. The justification that no new molecular process was identified, seems acceptable, for publication in this journal.
Motivation:
Four lines by an editorial board member. Better than nothing... Not new enough for them. Reasonable decision time though.
Motivation:
Rejected for lack of novelty. Comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Fast enough, with excuses for being a bit longer than usual. I recommend sending to ELife, as at least, explanations are given for immediate rejection, in a more than reasonable timeframe.
Motivation:
My submitted article entitled "RELIABILITY BASED OPTIMIZATION OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK"
The chief editor rejected it with this letter:
Thank you for submitting your Manuscript ID EQE-16-0266 entitled "RELIABILITY BASED OPTIMIZATION OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK" for possible publication in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. This journal’s scope includes all topics on earthquake engineering and related aspects of structural dynamics. However, papers that may be <b>relevant</b> but do not <b>emphasize</b> earthquake engineering are not suitable for the Journal. Your paper seems to fall into this category.
Thus, I am declining it with the suggestion that you consider submitting it to another journal; perhaps the paper belongs to journals that focus on optimization or neural networks. In the future, if you prepare papers that emphasize earthquake engineering, I would be pleased to consider them for publication in the journal.
Sincerely,
Anil K. Chopra
Surprisingly after 2 days they published a research with this title: " Seismic fragility and reliability of structures isolated by friction pendulum devices: seismic reliability‐based design (SRBD)".
The chief editor rejected it with this letter:
Thank you for submitting your Manuscript ID EQE-16-0266 entitled "RELIABILITY BASED OPTIMIZATION OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK" for possible publication in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. This journal’s scope includes all topics on earthquake engineering and related aspects of structural dynamics. However, papers that may be <b>relevant</b> but do not <b>emphasize</b> earthquake engineering are not suitable for the Journal. Your paper seems to fall into this category.
Thus, I am declining it with the suggestion that you consider submitting it to another journal; perhaps the paper belongs to journals that focus on optimization or neural networks. In the future, if you prepare papers that emphasize earthquake engineering, I would be pleased to consider them for publication in the journal.
Sincerely,
Anil K. Chopra
Surprisingly after 2 days they published a research with this title: " Seismic fragility and reliability of structures isolated by friction pendulum devices: seismic reliability‐based design (SRBD)".
Motivation:
The reviewers were spot on with some of their criticism and suggestions. Overall the review process was fairly smooth and the final editorial decision quite quick.
Motivation:
We had an extremely positive experience with the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) editorial process after publishing our research protocol in the sister journal, JMIR Research Protocols. The Editor was rapid and directive in his editorial decisions, which was appreciated. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
Clear and relevant requests by reviewers. Fast editorial process.
Motivation:
I was strongly encouraged to rewrite the original submitted version. I did so, also submitting a detailed list of changes and responses. I submitted the revised version in September 2015. Toward the end of January 2015, I wrote the editor seeking an update. The reply: "I am still waiting for the reviews but chasing the reviewers. Hope to be able to come back to you shortly".
Having no reply, I wrote the editor in early September 2016, asking for an update. The reply in part: "To be frank, we have discussed your paper among the guest editors but felt that on balance the revised version did not address the concerns that had been raised by the reviewers. Hence we were not very optimistic that the revised paper would survive the inevitable peer review."
Having no reply, I wrote the editor in early September 2016, asking for an update. The reply in part: "To be frank, we have discussed your paper among the guest editors but felt that on balance the revised version did not address the concerns that had been raised by the reviewers. Hence we were not very optimistic that the revised paper would survive the inevitable peer review."
Motivation:
Everything went very quickly and efficiently with this Journal of Neuroscience review process. In a way, you somewhat expect this, given that you pay to submit to this journal. I was very pleased from start to finish with the speed, efficiency and quality of the peer review process with Journal of Neuroscience.
Motivation:
Seemed a bit slow for a desk reject (~2.5 weeks) but the submission process was relatively straightforward so not too much time lost.