Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Against a fee payment, after 6 months just one report, which was not constructive (just providing a very generic disagreement on the approach adopted).
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"
"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:
The editorial rejection was sufficiently quick and motivated on the basis of a "high enough priority score to qualify for further review."
Motivation:
Quick process and a collaborative comments by Editor and reviewers
Motivation:
Low quality and careless review from only one reviewer was the basis of the reject decision.
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:
10 months...
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.
Motivation:
-2 Reviewers out of 3 came with subjective statements, not scientifically sound. Some statements were even not related to the content of the paper.
-Appeal was introduced, we had to wait for 6 months before this was processed 'because NPG lost the editor'. Then, after appeal was accepted reviewing process took again 3 months, it ended up with the fact that the paper was sent back to the 3 initial reviewers, one of them refused to read again, and clearly, the editor did even not read our arguments.
-Very poor communication with NPG.
-According to a reviewer "his paper does not merit the high profile and sales pitch it is aiming for by being published in a Scientific Reports"
In other words: Sci Rep has to make money!
-Appeal was introduced, we had to wait for 6 months before this was processed 'because NPG lost the editor'. Then, after appeal was accepted reviewing process took again 3 months, it ended up with the fact that the paper was sent back to the 3 initial reviewers, one of them refused to read again, and clearly, the editor did even not read our arguments.
-Very poor communication with NPG.
-According to a reviewer "his paper does not merit the high profile and sales pitch it is aiming for by being published in a Scientific Reports"
In other words: Sci Rep has to make money!
Motivation:
The Editor offered a transfer of the manuscript to another Journal for submission