Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
Motivation:
The reviews were of very low quality, we did submit an appeal but after almost 4 months of waiting for an answer we withdraw it
Motivation:
This is the reason given for immediate rejection of the manuscript:
"Although it is quite clear that a great deal of effort and thinking went into your study, unfortunately, I find that is (sic) not suitable for publication in Assessment."
"Although it is quite clear that a great deal of effort and thinking went into your study, unfortunately, I find that is (sic) not suitable for publication in Assessment."
Motivation:
Many good points made in reviews that improved the manuscript, but the overall process took almost 2 years with 4 rounds of review. At the same time, the journal published other papers fairly quickly that clearly were not held to the same standard. Unevenness in the rigor of review and overly picky requirements by some reviewers/editors seems like a problem.
Motivation:
One reviewer was quite constructive and identified how the paper should be improved. The other one was picking on minor things, but the editor suggested we consider the former one's comments -- which we'll do. Given the comments we got, I'm mostly disappointed with our not spotting these weaknesses; the handling of the manuscript was fair.
Motivation:
Reviewers did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Their directions for changes indicated that they did not understand the appropriate statistical methods for the study conducted.
Motivation:
The referee's suggestion was not so negative, but the Editor decided to reject the manuscript on the basis of her/his comments (just 1 referee).
Motivation:
I was not agree with a few of the referees' ideas, but they worked in a reasonable amount of time.
Motivation:
The entire review process has taken a really long time
Motivation:
Fast and correct review precess
Motivation:
Very fast review process.
Motivation:
A slow review process, but useful to improve the quality of the manuscript
Motivation:
Positive experience. I have to specify that we were invited to submt the manuscript for a special issue.
Motivation:
Very fast review process!
Motivation:
Fast review process. Reviewers were experts in the field.
Motivation:
Thorough peer- review process. Manuscript greatly improved through the process.
I would recommend submitting to the journal
I would recommend submitting to the journal
Motivation:
The review process greatly improves the quality of the paper. But sometimes the editor should send the paper to suitable candidate to review, but it is always a challenge.
Motivation:
The reviewer quality was excellent, but the process was slow.
Motivation:
Quick and professional review
Motivation:
I think the decision was a bit too drastic. Perhaps a proper review process would have help to improve the manuscript and its content. The positive point is that the decision took only a few days.
Motivation:
I found the entire process with this journal timely and reasonable. Although we had a positive outcome for the paper, if we had not had such an outcome, I could have easily revised and submitted elsewhere without losing much time because of their quick turnaround.
Motivation:
Initial review time was reasonable, but each subsequent period, which required evaluation of only the changes, was far too long. The 2nd revision required the addition of one panel to an existing figure and could have been evaluated in minutes to decide if it was satisfactory - instead, we waited 9 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, I made several inquiries to the editorial office (PNAS does not reveal the editor of the paper so there is no way to contact him/her directly) who told me they were following up. This went on for 4 more weeks (emails and eventually phone calls, trying to get a decision. Finally, in frustration, I contacted an editorial board member with whom I have a professional relationship and asked for advice on how to get a decision; he contacted the Editor in Chief and within 10 minutes I got a message telling me that the Board accepted the paper, and that the original editor would be informed of the decision. While we were obviously happy with the final outcome, the process took far longer than it should have based on the modest nature of the corrections made at each stage, and created significant anxiety due to uncertainty and concerns that we might get scooped due to the delay.
31.3 weeks
31.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I think everything went well apart from the rather long wait for the first review response. Usually VSD does it within 2 months in my experience. One of the reviewers didn't leave any comments, but the other submitted a page of useful comments. Please be aware of word and figure limits when you publish with VSD as they might object to any exceedance in these respects if you don't give a motivation. On the other hand I managed to exceed the figure limit grossly as long as I gave a motivation.
Motivation:
This journal requires scripts of high quality. I suppose the rejection is because the script was not well-written and the most interesting point was not highlighted, so that the script seems not attractive. After a major revision, the work was published finally in Nonlinear Analysis, TMA.
Motivation:
rejected by the editor with no review. Rejection email written from a non-institutional email address (but rather a private company email address) with no relationship with J. Controlled Release, using subject line 'your submission'.
Email signed 'Editors, Journal of Controlled Release' (which editor??????).
I first thought this email was a prank.
Email signed 'Editors, Journal of Controlled Release' (which editor??????).
I first thought this email was a prank.
6.4 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
I submitted the manuscript in September and it went through two revisions before letting me know that is was not acceptable in March since it was not registered . This is something they could have put in their instructions for authors (like other journals) or they could have even have informed before sending it out to the reviewers or even after the first review (since I told them at this time that we did not register the study). We chose this journal since it did not state that this was a requirement for the journal. To take 7 months of time and 2 revisions is totally unprofessional and unacceptable. This was not a trivial waste of my time. I will not submit to this journal ever again. One of my friends had a similarly unprofessional experience.