Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Well handles, slightly slow review process but no real problems.
Motivation:
Very professional handling with great comments and low response time.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was very vague and indicated that the paper had not been read thoroughly.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely long with reviewer comments pointing in very different directions. While some of the comments were good and did improve the quality of the paper, it cannot justify the long waiting period.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were useful but the length of time for the manuscript to be assigned reviewers, the time it took to receive the reviewer's reports after being assigned to reviewers and the length of time it took to receive responses to emails was excessive.
Motivation:
The suggestions for improvements given by the referees were very close to corrections, I wished I had already done in the first submission. Statements I had provided were addressed, and my arguments for not changing them were obviously accepted. The discussion was improved by adding a few additional descriptive data, which supported the main idea and conclusion.
Motivation:
The review process was a little bit too long. However, communication with the editor was perfect.
Motivation:
After more than 4 months I received about 8 lines of comments from each of reviewers.
Motivation:
Quick decision, however the reason for rejection is still not clear to me; they stated that my paper was "primarily exploratory".
Motivation:
The comments were all reasonable but the process has been extremely slow
Motivation:
One reviewer clearly hadn't read the manuscript. Comments were contradictory
Motivation:
We appreciated the fact that the editor commit himself in the revision process. We had to make some changes after the acceptance and the editorial office responded very kindly to our demands.