Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We chose this journal in part because the open access fee is much more reasonable than other journals, and we were rewarded with an excellent Editorial staff and publication process. I was impressed by the quality of the reviews, which addressed not only the manuscript but also supplemental information (code documentation). The Editors were quick to respond to inquiry and accommodating about resubmission deadlines and submitting companion papers. The typesetting and publication process was smooth and conducted quickly.
Motivation:
They were efficient and sent a lot of feedback but the first reasons listed for reject were focused on failing to conform completely to APA style & then ideological differences - the latter is unacceptable and the former tends to happen when reviewers don't have more substantive comments to make.
Motivation:
The reviews were very long, but sadly at the same time not very helpful and at some points it was even evident that the reviewers did not really understand the experiments (which of course could be a result of bad writing!). The decision to reject the manuscript basically boiled down to "the topic is not interesting enough for our journal", which to me is always a very subjective and suboptimal decision criterion. Since the editor did not add anything to the review process, the reviewers get a slightly better rating than the overall experience. But of course the journal is not to blame for the habits of one person and this should not affect your decision to submit your work to this outlet.
Motivation:
The decision not to send out the manuscript was well motivated, but the fact that it took over 4 weeks to "desk reject" a paper seems quite long. To be fair, JEP:G gets a lot of submissions and this might have been bad luck.
Motivation:
This is my best yet publishing experience. Very professional, on time, and with e-mail (and reminders) from the editorial office on the whereabouts of the manuscript. Special congrats to the Action Editor on her timely and supportive decision letters.
Motivation:
Fast review process, fair and polite reviewers.
Motivation:
Straightforward process, useful reviews and overall a painless process.
Motivation:
Nine months for having a rejection!
Motivation:
The paper has been submitted to reviewers and I received only comments from one reviewer and the comments of the editor. The editor decide to reject the paper for the following reason: 'This is not one of the application focuses of ISA Trans. There are number of journals in this area, as listed in References in the paper. The authors may consider to submit the paper to one of these journals'.
-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.
-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
The revision process was fast and problems were solved with the support of the journals office.
Motivation:
We responded to EVERY comment made by the reviewers with new data. One of the reviewers made a serious error in their review of the manuscript and new data; they did not read it. I appealed to the editor to examine it. The editor make me wait two additional weeks, then told me "they do not overturn reviewers decisions". I asked the editor if she read the reviewer's comments. I never got a response.
Motivation:
Got good reviews that provided good direction for revising the manuscript. The reviews I got after the revision reflected more the personal beliefs of the editor and his hand-selected new reviewers than anything objective. I will never submit anything to this journal again.
Motivation:
The review process was slow, but received comments very good.
Motivation:
Review process took a long time. Reviewer suggested rejection because of matters that was not the focus of the paper and were not even major.
6.3 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Took a long time. The reviewer advised rejection while it was possible to address their comments.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not allocated an Editor until the 24th October thus spending nearly four weeks in the system without being considered.
Motivation:
No issues with the way the manuscript was handled by the editor, everything happened in a reasonable timeframe. The quality of the reviews was disappointing though, ranging from questions that do not make sense to asking for in vivo experiments that take >1year to do. A thorough rebuttal letter seems to have worked though.
Motivation:
the review process as a whole happened in a speedy way
the success of review lies in identifying the appropriate editor and referees
the success of review lies in identifying the appropriate editor and referees
Motivation:
It seems the reasons provided for rejection could be immediately conveyed by the editor. The scientific advices provided after that long review period was not worth waiting. I think every author expects that she/he learns something from a rejection especially after several months of waiting.
Motivation:
Very unprofessional way to handle the review process.
Extremely slow (and it is the second time I experienced the same in this journal)
They forgot about sending to reviewers after re-submission.
When I tried to complain by their mail-contact system it came always an automatic anwer with the same sentence....
Extremely slow (and it is the second time I experienced the same in this journal)
They forgot about sending to reviewers after re-submission.
When I tried to complain by their mail-contact system it came always an automatic anwer with the same sentence....
135.1 weeks
135.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I submitted a manuscript on September 26, 2014. As I write today on October 25, 2016, I have not yet received the first round of reviews. Numerous emails to editor, sent out on an average after three months intervals, have been unanswered. Desperate emails to the associate editors have been unanswered. I even contacted elsevier and they have responded that they have contacted the editor. Apart from that nothing has moved. There is not even an option to withdraw the manuscript from the online portal. This is highly unprofessional and unethical on the part of the editor and the journal.
Motivation:
Editor Response: "While the Editors found your manuscript to be of interest, they felt that the inclusion of an in vivo component would greatly strengthen this study."
Motivation:
The submission and review process for Applications in Plant Sciences was efficient and transparent. The website allowed me to track the progress of the manuscript. The reviews were professional and to the point, and helped improve the paper. The editors were helpful and communicative.