Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The reviewers were helpful and fast, with two rounds taking only ~4-5 weeks total. We had the paper for two weeks for revision. The remainder, ~5.5 months, was dragged out by poor editorial handling. We waited >1 month before an editor and reviewers were found.
As an example of the poor editorial handling, the editorial office told us (because we complained about the slowness) that the second round of reviews had been completed, yet our status remained "under review" for 3 weeks afterward instead of "required reviews complete" or "awaiting editorial decision". And no further revisions were requested by reviewers, so the editor had no excuse to wait that length of time.
Publication production was very fast, taking only a week from formal acceptance to online publication.
As an example of the poor editorial handling, the editorial office told us (because we complained about the slowness) that the second round of reviews had been completed, yet our status remained "under review" for 3 weeks afterward instead of "required reviews complete" or "awaiting editorial decision". And no further revisions were requested by reviewers, so the editor had no excuse to wait that length of time.
Publication production was very fast, taking only a week from formal acceptance to online publication.
Motivation:
The decision making was too slow, and their comments were nothing but useless one.
Motivation:
I have the feeling that if I hadn't asked for the status of our manuscript (after correcting everything the reviewers told us and sending it back), the paper would still be waiting the final decision.
Motivation:
The editorial assistant, Jenny Abarbanel, was consistently prompt and helpful. Reviewer comments were high-quality and contributed to the paper. Bruce Hoffman, the editor in chief, was also extremely prompt in all his communications. I highly recommend submitting your manuscript to this journal - they are communicative and timely where other journals are often unresponsive, slow, and unhelpful.
Motivation:
The durations of the reviews were less than 4 weeks, so it is relatively fast. The comments of two reviewers were rigorous and helpful for the improvement of my manuscript, so we revised our paper twice. We extended the revision time once, and the editor was easy to communicate.
Motivation:
Long turn around time. Third reviewer (not involved in initial reviews) gave a very emotive review.
Motivation:
Overall good handling and high quality reviews.
First review round took quite long.
First review round took quite long.