Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The speed of the reviews was very reasonable. In hindsight, the reviewers could have asked for aspects of the data be presented, which would have helped with its interpretation by subsequent studies. The aspect in point were the dates at which the disease pathogen were observed. But then it was not in the objectives of the paper to measure "when", but "where". Subsequent research questions are now "when".
Motivation:
I have published several papers in this Journal. So far the reviewing process was very good, the assigned editor was responsive, tried to evaluate the manuscript and the reviews and provided suggestions to improve the quality of the submitted papers and, in this way, of the Journal. This time, we received reports from 2 people that apparently did not take to the time to even scan the manuscript. One of them provided a self-conflicting and irrelevant report. He started with suggestions for minor things to change and in the end he recommended rejecting the paper. The other reviewer presented papers (perhaps his own) that were clearly unrelated to the topic we examined. The worst thing is that the assigned editor (unknown to us) did not bother to even scan the paper or the reviews, hence he ordered the Journal editorial office to rejected it without even bothering to write an explanatory letter.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The reviewer criticized the manuscript purely based on lack of methodological innovation, while not paying any interest at all at the results and contribution of the manuscript to understand an ill-researched topic. I found the arguments for rejection very shallow and purely academic, i.e. absolutely no effort was done to place the value of the manuscript in a context of contributing to an ill-researched topic. Some of the arguments were not valid and showed that the reviewer had not carefully read the manuscript. The editor based the rejection on a single, unsympathetic reviewer report, which I do not find fair.
Motivation:
The editor's letter was fair, but I do not fully agree with the reasons of rejection. Limited geographical scope was used as an argument. However, if you check articles in recent issues of the journal, this argument does not hold. I do not have the feeling that my manuscript was sufficiently checked for its fit into the journal. The editor was simply not interested in the topic and deemed it not important enough. I do not think I will try this journal again.
Motivation:
Fast response, good reviewers and fast editorial decision.
Motivation:
The quality of some of the published papers is a mere shame, so I am happy this editor rejected consistently all the papers (2 or 3) we submitted. Imagine that a paper on the fatigue behavior of titanium alloy dental implants.....does not belong to "dental materials". That really makes me wonder. What is more sad is the lack of reaction of Elsevier who decided not to interfere with the decision. papers were never sent for review, they were rejected outright with a standard letter. The Editor ignored all correspondence.
Motivation:
The process was very slow, the communication from editors and even online was poor, and the editorial leadership and guidance absent. Overall a very disappointing experience.
Motivation:
Almost two weeks lost for an editor's immediate reject decision probably based on the potential impact of the subject and not on manuscript content. Other journals' editors do it in one day.
Motivation:
Immediate reject decision in only one day!
Motivation:
The review process was excellent as were the comments provided by the reviewers. However, the length of the final editorial decision on the manuscript was too long.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected, the reviews were very helpful and the handling time was reasonable.
Motivation:
Extremely slow desk rejection. Poor communication from the editorial assistant.
Motivation:
The editor, Kevin Hewison, was extremely prompt. Even though the paper was rejected because it did not fit with the current publishing agenda of the journal, we appreciated Dr Hewison's clear and timely communication that allowed us to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
Althoug the final decision was not satisfying, the revision process was quite fast and relevant, and the comments of the editor and the reviewers helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
It was my second experience in publishing and first in this journal.
I rated 3 because:
-if I compare my process to the one of other people in my field, it seemed a standard process. Nothing was exceptionnaly bad or good.
- Overall the process is not efficient. There should be some amount of money involved for reviewers for speeding the process. I think that we would gain high efficiency also if the most important points that have to be improved in the manuscript were discussed verbally between the reviewer and the one who's been reviewed. There is a high amount of wasted time because both don't understand each other.
I rated 3 because:
-if I compare my process to the one of other people in my field, it seemed a standard process. Nothing was exceptionnaly bad or good.
- Overall the process is not efficient. There should be some amount of money involved for reviewers for speeding the process. I think that we would gain high efficiency also if the most important points that have to be improved in the manuscript were discussed verbally between the reviewer and the one who's been reviewed. There is a high amount of wasted time because both don't understand each other.
Motivation:
This was my first experience in publishing a paper.
I found that the ratio "improvement of manuscript" versus "amount of time it takes to make corrections and resubmit" was excellent, particularly when I compare to my second experience in publishing with Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. But this may also have to do with the fact that this paper (in JAB) was more a technical subject than a biological one (so maybe more straightforward to answer).
I found that the ratio "improvement of manuscript" versus "amount of time it takes to make corrections and resubmit" was excellent, particularly when I compare to my second experience in publishing with Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. But this may also have to do with the fact that this paper (in JAB) was more a technical subject than a biological one (so maybe more straightforward to answer).
Motivation:
The editor's decision was fast.
Motivation:
It is unacceptable that after 3 months and a half, we received just the comment of one reviewer. We expected two or three referee after such a long time.
Motivation:
Judging on the general style of reviewer comments, he had a good knowledge of martensitic transformations in the iron-based alloys. His remarks concerned some shortcomings in presentation of experimental data.
Motivation:
The remarks of the first reviewer were critical and reasonable. It was not difficult to revise the manuscript. Generally, I think that the accepted practice with one reviewer is not sufficient for a correct estimation of submitted manuscripts.