Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Time-saving because of pre-submission inquiry and quick response. Very transparent and fair.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and was finished in a high quality.
Motivation:
During these 66.4 weeks, I haven't received any reply to my e-mails, although I sent emails to ask about the status of my manuscript. On November 2 2015 I sent emails to the Editor, to two different addresses, to inform him that I want to withdraw my manuscript. I haven't received any response to my withdrawn request.
On April 6 2016 I was informed that my accepted manuscript was already transferred to Springer, and I had to contact some unknown Editors from Springer and ask them to contact the Editor from JMC and inform him that my manuscript have been withdrawn.
On April 6 2016 I was informed that my accepted manuscript was already transferred to Springer, and I had to contact some unknown Editors from Springer and ask them to contact the Editor from JMC and inform him that my manuscript have been withdrawn.
Motivation:
(1) It takes super long time to get response from the journal and the reviewing results (more than half a year).
(2) The comments given by the reviewers were, to my opinion, not professional enough. They do not understand the design of our field experiments, but they didn't even ask us to explain the reason of the design but just said it's not realistic and reject. Another example is, one reviewer criticized we didn't include energy consumption of irrigation at farm in our energy balance and required us to recalculate the whole balance. But we didn't use irrigation at the farm at all.
Overall speaking, my experience with Journal of Environmental Management this time was not good. However, we still learned something from the experience.
(2) The comments given by the reviewers were, to my opinion, not professional enough. They do not understand the design of our field experiments, but they didn't even ask us to explain the reason of the design but just said it's not realistic and reject. Another example is, one reviewer criticized we didn't include energy consumption of irrigation at farm in our energy balance and required us to recalculate the whole balance. But we didn't use irrigation at the farm at all.
Overall speaking, my experience with Journal of Environmental Management this time was not good. However, we still learned something from the experience.
Motivation:
Both reviews were detailed and extensive, and improved the manuscript significantly.
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected (not fitting to the journal's objectives completely), the rejection was fast. This enabled me to prepare the manuscript and submit it to another journal quickly, which I appreciate.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected immediately, it needed improvement according to the editor. We submitted another manuscript to this journal, and noticed, that the editor immediately rejected that one too, for the very same reason. After we changed some minor details of the manuscript, the paper was then considered for review, and was accepted after first review.
Throughout the whole process, the editor was suggesting different papers we should cite, was giving comments on figures (e.g. make the figures fit in one column, which we did, however at the end the figures were printed in two columns), and other remarks. We found this awkward, as we have not seen this level of involvement of an editor so far - especially in terms of suggesting new and new references (also his, or from the editorial board).
Throughout the whole process, the editor was suggesting different papers we should cite, was giving comments on figures (e.g. make the figures fit in one column, which we did, however at the end the figures were printed in two columns), and other remarks. We found this awkward, as we have not seen this level of involvement of an editor so far - especially in terms of suggesting new and new references (also his, or from the editorial board).
Motivation:
Got very quick outright rejection from the Schaefer office with one referee being positive and the other referee being negative. The negative referee put a few criticisms which contradict to the present state of the field. I would rate this review as rather non-professional. The editor decided to blindly follow onr of the referes and reject the manuscript.
We filed a quick appeal and resubmitted to the same journal.
We filed a quick appeal and resubmitted to the same journal.
Motivation:
Criteria for suitability to Nature are not clear, speaking seriously.
Motivation:
A general "low-urgency" response template. No details.
Motivation:
Nothing more to say. All was very smooth and reasonable
Motivation:
It simply took too long time.
Motivation:
One reviewer who obviously had an axe to grind advised against accepting the manuscript. The other two reviewers requested a minor revision. The editor sided with the horrible reviewer but did not provide a rationale for doing so.
Motivation:
In general, it was a worth experience, except the time elapsed for the first decision. Furthermore, one of the reviewers, in my opinion, was incisive in excess, including irrelevant comments e.g. to use 2cm instead 20mm, eight instead 8, and so on. This kind of revisions don't contributed at all to improve the manuscript but difficulted the solutions of mistakes and delayed the publications of scientific results.
Motivation:
It was six weeks before the editor sent the paper out for review. Eight months later, I still did not have a decision. None of my inquiries received a response. Finally, I wrote and said that I intended to withdraw my paper if I did not hear anything within a week. Days later I received an acceptance.
Motivation:
Review process was fair. Editor's treatment quite friendly and objective.
Motivation:
The matter of discontent is that the editor, surely, is in his right to to consider the paper to be out of the scope of his journal, but to take more than 4 months to arrive at this conclusion is toooooooo much
Motivation:
Unfair consideration by the Assistant Editor whose reasons for rejection were: (1) "the initial scrutiny of your manuscript has revealed that your manuscript has a very limited scope for our journal", which was quite surprising, because the journal has specific rubric on the issue; (2) "it has not been formatted properly according to author's guidelines", which was the height because the manuscript was prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines point by point.