Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was a bit slow however the reviews were professional and constructive. The reviewer's comments and suggestions helped to improve the original submission. The handling editor was also responsive and helpful.
Motivation:
It seemed that the review has been delivered long-time age however the handling editor processed it only when I inquired about the status ~2.5 month after submission.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I've sent my article to special issue entitled as "Machine Learning and High-Performance Computing in Healthcare Applications (VSI-lhha)"
My article proposes a textile-based system for the detection and monitoring of sitting posture disorders.
The article primarily includes high performance calculation results (99.3% accuracy).
The data taken from the seat cover were classified by 7 different machine learning methods for 5 different classes.
The proposed system has the potential to be used and personalized with a mobile application.
The proposed system has adaptable components for the care of inpatients, especially for the prevention of bedsores.
I shared all the data I used in my article with the readers.
For the first time in the literature, a kinect-based automatic labeling method is proposed.
I think that my article deserves to be submitted at least for peer review.
I've contacted the editor-in-chief of journal and editor of the special issue so that they could explain why it doesn't fit the scope of the journal even with a few sentences about rejection but anyone didn't return .
My article proposes a textile-based system for the detection and monitoring of sitting posture disorders.
The article primarily includes high performance calculation results (99.3% accuracy).
The data taken from the seat cover were classified by 7 different machine learning methods for 5 different classes.
The proposed system has the potential to be used and personalized with a mobile application.
The proposed system has adaptable components for the care of inpatients, especially for the prevention of bedsores.
I shared all the data I used in my article with the readers.
For the first time in the literature, a kinect-based automatic labeling method is proposed.
I think that my article deserves to be submitted at least for peer review.
I've contacted the editor-in-chief of journal and editor of the special issue so that they could explain why it doesn't fit the scope of the journal even with a few sentences about rejection but anyone didn't return .
Motivation:
Fast feedback.
Motivation:
I feel pretty lucky to publish in the Journal of Functional Analysis.
Motivation:
Topic was not interesting enough to the editor (no detailed comments, rather vague).
Motivation:
They offered a transfer to the sister open-access journal Advanced Engineering Materials.
Motivation:
Editor was unable to find reviewers and so it wasn't until 4 months later that we received news of the rejection. One of the reviews was very brief and contained factual errors.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 57.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After almost two months of inactivity from the Editor, we decided to withdraw the manuscript. After two requests for information about the status of the manuscript, the Editor was contacted by the Journal Manager, but nothing happened.
Motivation:
Although referee reports were adequate, time taken to review was on the excessive side compared to its contents.
Motivation:
We have had a desk rejection after 5 months! No reason was given, excepting they are 'receiving many papers'. Totally regrettable. This is not a serious journal.
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast, and comments reviewers were valued in the improved manuscript
Motivation:
10 months for one (1) peer review report with the offer to revise and re-submit. Withdrawn because of the painfully slow process.
Motivation:
The review was delayed by half of the year just because one of the reviewers did not respond. The editors did not try to invite a new reviewer and informed us of this situation after four months.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
I wasted a long time for outright rejection. It was a terrible experience.
Motivation:
The manuscript took almost a month to be processed due to it being un-submitted for formatting "issues" that are not laid out in the submission guidelines. The review quality was exceptionally poor with one reviewer making methodological comments without knowing anything about quantitative methods. Another reviewer did not read past page 12.
Motivation:
A bit slow process, but reasonable critique from reviewers.
Motivation:
Fast process. Editor was competent and constructive.
Motivation:
This was a data visualization so the process was slightly different than a traditional research article submission. It appeared to be reviewed by members of the editorial board rather than external reviewers. The editors apologized for the delays in the initial review by explaining that they had to wait until the next committee meeting. The topic of my data visualization was very "out there" (it had been desk rejected by a previous journal) so I was pleasantly surprised when the editors gave it the green light. Overall it was a good experience. I will definitely be submitting here again in the future.
Motivation:
Prompt and fair review process all around. Would submit here again.
Motivation:
The initial peer review process was a bit lengthy, but the reviewers' comments were mostly reasonable. Our paper was a minor revision, but it also took a little longer for the acceptance decision after resubmission. After acceptance, the process to publication was very smooth.
Motivation:
The paper was handled properly without much delay. I received three reviewer reports; they helped me improve the work towards final acceptance. The production process was smooth and fast.
Motivation:
Thorough review reports and a very fair and fast handling time.