Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I was impressed with the journal and how my manuscript was reviewed and finally accepted. The editors work with the authors to produce a high quality paper. I also appreciated that the editor made the decision to accept the paper after revision without sending it back to review, despite substantial changes. This greatly reduces the time to the publishing.
Motivation:
Reviews were thorough, however it took almost 110 days to first decision. This was despite the fact that I could see via the online portal that the reviews themselves had been completed weeks prior to this. Took more than 1 email for this to be acknowledged and a decision sent. Total handling time was very long. However once accepted the paper was formatted and posted online very quickly.
Motivation:
At least the rejection was timely. However, the reviews were one paragraph each which wasn't particularly helpful. Also, editor indicated paper should have psychophys data which ours did not (it was a methods paper), but the journal has published similar papers in the past.
Motivation:
It was obvious that one of the reviewers didn't read the manuscript.
The editor offered to send the article to the same referees if resubmitted after being revised, but once it was submited again he didn't do it, and the process started again with another editor and referees.
The editor offered to send the article to the same referees if resubmitted after being revised, but once it was submited again he didn't do it, and the process started again with another editor and referees.
Motivation:
The editor suggested to transfer the article to the Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies.
Motivation:
The rejection in itself was not a problem as the paper indeed needed further improvement. Rather, the problem was that one of the reviews was particularly abrasive and offensive at a personal level (including a statement such as "To correct its [the paper's] flaws a sabbatical at a good library is required."). I was disappointed in the editors' decision not to dismiss such a review when making the decision. While the latter may have still been 'reject', abrasive reviews are not conducive to academic debates and editors should take particular care in accepting them.
Motivation:
The article was not a good fit for the journal, which is perfectly acceptable and was decided shortly upon submission. However, I received the results four months after submission, with a note from the editor saying, " Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting this letter to you. I had written it some months ago and neglected to click on "send."
Motivation:
Fast turnaround, but with ambiguous reviews it would have been useful to see them wait for a third review before deciding to reject.
Motivation:
It was quite tricky with my re-submission: the manuscript was sent back to me 2 days after the re-submission (major revision) without telling me what is going on (no comments or additional information attached). I sent an e-mail to ask the editorial board and got the reply after 1 week, which asked me to revise the manuscript according to the review report I received before. So I just re-submitted the manuscript again. Besides this ,everything was fine.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
We received one review that was six pages, single-spaced. The review was incoherent with incomplete sentences and we had no idea what the reviewer even wanted. The review contained a misquote of Shakespeare. Because we had no idea what the reviewer even wanted, we chose to withdraw and go to another journal. The paper ended up being published in another journal with a higher impact factor.
Motivation:
I didn’t have a good experience with the journal. The revision process took way more time than usual. The manuscript was endorsed by the two reviewers after second revision with very good feedback. One of the reviewers was not satisfied even after second revision and withdrew from the review process four months after the second submission. In between those four months we have contacted the editorial team every month and no concrete information was provided. After four months when we wrote a decisive email to the editor, they gave the decision by rejecting the manuscript. The journal took eleven months in total to reject the manuscript.
Motivation:
Neither the editor-in-chief nor the associate editor provided any reason why the manuscript was rejected in the letter of rejection. My co-authors and I were told to refer to referee comments (i.e. work it out yourself). Neither referee stated that the manuscript should be rejected (which in my view would have been inappropriate in any case). My co-authors and I felt that we could have easily addressed all comments provided by the referee (many of them being editorial). Therefore after waiting for over 3 months for a response, we were very disappointed to have the work rejected without editorial input.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 288.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The Editor-in-Chief suggested withdrawal of the manuscript as he was unable to find reviewers.
Motivation:
I never received an acknowledge of reception; I wrote three times to the editor to know what was going on. I finally withdrew my manuscript. A few weeks later, I finally got a message from the editor apologizing.
Motivation:
The review process was quiet effiecient. The text of the manuscript was checked by the journal and the figures were also revised for the design of the journal. The fees were fairly low in comparison to other journals (750 USD).
Motivation:
The review required too much time!
Motivation:
The journal and reviewers clearly did not care for the manuscript - the comments were not really formative, just not good enough. Immediately resubmitted to a different journal with a more broad focus but higher IF: accepted immediately.