All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Although only one reviewer's comments were taken into account, these were very extensive and helpful. The process took a bit longer than a was hoping - I would prefer receiving a rejection sooner (not after two months).

Motivation: The motiviation provided by the reviewer was not correct in my opinion

Motivation: To submit a paper to this journal is not easy.
Must follow a few rules.
https://www.cirp.net/mainmenu-publications/authors-submit-a-paper.html

Motivation: Although it was rejected by the handling editor after first set of review, we answered all the questions/comments/suggestions made by two reviewers and resubmitted. Our manuscript went to the same handling editor and the editor rejected the manuscript promptly. Editor also wrote that "I did not invite for resubmission". For my further appeal to reconsider earlier decision, it was made clear that it is editor's subjective decision to reject the manuscript.

What happened at this point of time is more interesting and given in the following: Exactly on the same subject matter of the manuscript with significantly inferior quality, another manuscript was accepted around the same time (may be ten days before). When I pointed out this fact to the Editor and handling editor, I was told that, they never compare published manuscripts to the submitted manuscripts. I asked further, what is the bench mark you are giving to your potential authors. I never got any direct reply to this question from either Editor or handling editor. It was frustrating.

When we submitted this manuscript to another best journal, it was a cake walk for us and it was accepted and published.

Motivation: Such reviews do not help the authors:
"Thank you for submitting your manuscript referenced above.

The large number of submissions being received by New Journal of Chemistry these past few months obliges the editors to make a preliminary selection of papers that will be considered for publication in NJC after full peer review. We have solicited the members of the Editorial Boards to help us with this selection.

I regret to inform you that your manuscript was not one of those selected by the Editorial Boards to undergo full peer review. Thus your paper will not be considered further as a submission to New Journal of Chemistry as it does not fall within the scope of the journal.

I apologize for the lateness of this decision, which is due to the significant backlog of manuscripts awaiting handling.

The increased success of NJC means that we must now be more selective in the choice of papers that we can consider for publication.

I am sorry not to have better news for you. I encourage you to submit your results to a more appropriate journal and I wish you success with publishing this work. Thank you for your interest in New Journal of Chemistry.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Denise Parent
Managing Editor, New Journal of Chemistry
njc@rsc.org"

Motivation: After two revisions which satisfied the referees, the paper was nevertheless rejected by the editorial board. I was told that the journal had more papers with positive recommendations than space. Of course the editors saw this coming, but they failed to take proper measures and instead wasted the time and efforts of several authors and referees.

Motivation: The referee was obviously biased and did not produce a serious report.

Motivation: Quick process and a collaborative comments by Editor and reviewers

Motivation: One of the reviewers was not familiar with the research study design (diagnostic accuracy). The majority of this reviewers comments and questions related to RCT design. After addressing each comment and explaining diagnostic accuracy study design, the majority of comments after second review stated that the diagnostic accuracy study design should have been made more clear in the manuscript. This despite the fact that "diagnostic accuracy study design" was selected as the manuscript type in the online submission system, was included in the manuscript title, in the study design in abstract and in the manuscript, and in the statistical methods section. In addition the journal required submission of a completed STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy studies which was provided. It is concerning that external reviewers for high impact factor scientific journals do not appear to recognise different research study designs and that editorial decisions may be influenced by this.

Motivation: The review process in general was ok, but we waited more than one year between acceptance and publication of the manuscript.

Motivation: After a 10 day review, the MS was rejected on the basis of a lack of mechanistic data. No other feedback was provided and therefore, the entire process was not very helpful.

Motivation: The article was not not taken into consideration by the editorial board because of its inconsistency with the main topics of journal (this answer I received from the editorial board). I do not agree with this. I believe that the article should be sent to the external reviewers.