Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first part of the process was rather smooth, but the story was not finished after the primary acceptance. On January 8th 2016 we were informed that during the technical check a potential competing interest between one of the authors and the manuscript-handling Academic Editor was discovered, as they have co-published together within the last five years. It was the journal who selected the handling editor (who was not among the suggested Academic Editors that we were requested to indicate in the submission form). Therefore it's the journal's full responsibility and conflict of interest issues should have been checked at the start of the submission procedure and not after the evaluation of the manuscript.
On January 11th 2016 we have been informed that our manuscript has been assigned to a new Academic Editor and already on January 12th we got the notice that our manuscript did not meet the criteria for publication and therefore has been rejected, giving a very short and scientifically rather doubtful opinion to which we were not asked to respond, thus overruling the decision of the first editor and the reviewers.
We perceived this procedure as enormously disrespectful towards the authors and the reviewers who deemed the manuscript suitable for publication. After having contacted the senior editors and the journal management team asking for a more detailed explanation regarding their decision, there was no reply until this date (29. 4. 2016).
On January 11th 2016 we have been informed that our manuscript has been assigned to a new Academic Editor and already on January 12th we got the notice that our manuscript did not meet the criteria for publication and therefore has been rejected, giving a very short and scientifically rather doubtful opinion to which we were not asked to respond, thus overruling the decision of the first editor and the reviewers.
We perceived this procedure as enormously disrespectful towards the authors and the reviewers who deemed the manuscript suitable for publication. After having contacted the senior editors and the journal management team asking for a more detailed explanation regarding their decision, there was no reply until this date (29. 4. 2016).
Motivation:
The revised manuscript responded to all the original reviewers comments and made all changes as requested. It was rejected following revision.
The goalposts were moved at halftime because the revised manuscript was reviewed by an additional reviewer. This was confirmed to me by the publisher.
Following a letter of complaint to the editor, I was informed that:
'the timeline for this issue is considerably more drawn out than what it is typical for a standard issue. With that said, this special issue is more reflective of a grant or scholarship rather than a standard publication. Consequently, the adjudication process is very strict, and requires that only a handful of nearly 200 submissions are retained for publication. '
This paper was submitted to a special issue for early career researchers. I assumed that I was submitting a manuscript for publication and not making a grant application. If this is indeed true, it should have been made clear to all authors at the point of submission and not revealed over a year later following a slow and unhelpful review process.
The goalposts were moved at halftime because the revised manuscript was reviewed by an additional reviewer. This was confirmed to me by the publisher.
Following a letter of complaint to the editor, I was informed that:
'the timeline for this issue is considerably more drawn out than what it is typical for a standard issue. With that said, this special issue is more reflective of a grant or scholarship rather than a standard publication. Consequently, the adjudication process is very strict, and requires that only a handful of nearly 200 submissions are retained for publication. '
This paper was submitted to a special issue for early career researchers. I assumed that I was submitting a manuscript for publication and not making a grant application. If this is indeed true, it should have been made clear to all authors at the point of submission and not revealed over a year later following a slow and unhelpful review process.
Motivation:
The exact wording: "Unfortunately we do not feel that this work is suitable for publication in this journal at the present time. "
Alternate journal was recommended.
Alternate journal was recommended.
Motivation:
The editorial rejection did not include specific helpful information giving the reason for the rejection. However, the process was relatively fast, and the manuscript tracking on the author website was informative, showing which editor the manuscript had been assigned to and indicating when the manuscript was passed on to the board of reviewing editors. Online submission at this journal has improved substantially since I last submitted a manuscript there in 2012.
Motivation:
One reviewer was extremely positive and the second reviewer was asking many extra experiments not necessary and beyond the scope of the story and the editor was independent enough to not follow the reviewer's request. The paper was awarded by Faculty 1000 which also proofs that the reviewer's request was just ... no comment.
Motivation:
The review time per peer review round was very reasonable, but letting the process continue for so long did not seem very well motivated, as the reviewer was complaining about small details in the language (we/passive etc.), asking us to remove all the figures supporting our main conclusion and on the other hand requesting vast literature reviews about topics that were not central for the scope of the paper.
Motivation:
Our paper was a comment to an earlier publication where our work was misquoted and misrepresented. Having to wait over 9 months to get this kind of comment published is outrageous.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 32.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Submitted manuscripts are not assigned directly to an editor. Instead, editors can decide to take up the responsibility of handling the review process of a paper on a purely voluntary basis. Sometimes an editor with a high expertise in the field of the submitted paper is found quickly through this process, but in other cases no-one on the editorial board takes responsibility for the manuscript, and it is in practice rejected by the secretarial office without giving the author any explanation or scientific justification for the decision.
Motivation:
I thought that the overall review process was enjoyable. The reviewers provided valuable comments to the manuscript, and I think their responses improved the overall quality of the paper. The main criticism is the relatively long delay between submitting the manuscript and getting reviewer comments back - nearly 5 months time in between. Once the reviews came back, the rest of the process moved quite quickly.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were inconsistent in responses, which made it both hard (I'm sure) for the editor to justify acceptance and also hard to revise in preparation for submitting to another journal. One reviewer thought it should be accepted and provided 1/3 of a page of minor comments, while the other seemed to have a chip on their shoulder about something and provided 6 pages of very specific comments, some having nothing to do with content actually within the paper and recommended rejection.
Motivation:
One reviewer made very positive comments while the other did not seem to speak English as a first language, and requested changes indicated that he/she did not understand the methods of the study. When this was pointed out to the action editor and editor, we were invited to resubmit the manuscript and told that it would undergo another full review with new reviewers. This was unacceptable, and we declined.
Motivation:
The online submission system was fast and simple. Communication from the journal was poor. According to the online system, the article was not sent out for review for 3 months, and then only after I emailed to inquire why its status had not changed. The paper's status did not change for another 5.5 months. After I emailed again to inquire about its status, the editor gave a rejection notice within 24 hours based on their personal opinion and comments from one reviewer.
Motivation:
The comments and reviews provided were generally of good quality. My only major issue is with the number of revisions required: two rounds with reviewers (not a problem) and then revisions from three different editors, each requiring resubmission. Staff at Allen Press were really great working with proofs.
Motivation:
Very good reviews and great turnaround time
Motivation:
Rejected immediately due to not broad enough appeal, but the process was quick so we didn't have to wait to long. Offered the option to transfer our paper to another journal within the Nature Publishing Group (Scientific Reports). Overall a smooth and efficient system, though the outcome was not what we hoped.
Motivation:
The reviewers gave constructive comments, but the overall review time was far too long given that their website states an average first review time of under 8 weeks.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and professional. I definitively recommend this Journal.
Motivation:
Responsive Editor who balanced reviewer opinions very nicely and was open to direct contact for clarification on certain issues.
Motivation:
The process was reasonably quick. The first round of reviews were very helpfull, the secound round a bit less. Editors comments were helpfull.