Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This journal has a very broad range of subjects and has numerous editors. Including the names of editors relevant to your field in your cover letter address or potential reviewers may make the process go more smoothly. In my case, I was happy to have an editor assigned to a well-known researcher in my field whose name I included in my cover letter.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
Motivation:
One reviewer considered the paper "ready for publication", one asked for many clarifications, and one only submitted confidential comments to the editor. From the comments we got, the rejection is a bit surprising, but obviously we don't know what was in the confidential comments -- which doesn't help us improve the manuscript. That's not the journal's fault, though.
Motivation:
Most of the reviewers comments were suitable for the text and imporved the manuscript.
Motivation:
Was submitted and published as an Engineering & Laboratory Notes article. The manuscript was therefore on the shorter side and probably expedited the review process.
Motivation:
We had a problem with the editor in charge not responding in the first three months after submission. We contacted the editor-in-chief and he asked the associate editor to take care of our paper. The Associated Editor's commitment far exceeded our expectations. As the responsible editor still did not respond, the Associated Editor took over the peer review process and we finally received the approval decision.
Motivation:
I was initially very happy with the quick turn-around and the three high quality reviews. Unfortunately, the process took a bit longer eventually (e.g., the paper was sent out to one of the reviewers for a third time because of a typo).
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth. The time it took for the editors to accept the paper was a bit long, considering it was a rather minor revision, but the time frame was still very reasonable. The reviewers and editors were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
The decision was clear, both reviewers recommended rejecting the paper. The editor agrees that the paper is not a fit for the journal or specific subfield... why not desk reject? Got detailed comments that will help us move forward, though!
Motivation:
The overall review process took a reasonable amount of time. The production phase was a bit slow, taking almost 3 weeks. The quality of the revisions was average.
Motivation:
A Revista Texto & Contexto demora um pouco para responder sobre a avaliação, aceite ou recusa.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.
Motivation:
The editor did a good job handling the manuscript. However, the process takes too long. Five different reviewers review the article (with very different point of views)
Motivation:
The publication processs was fast. The editor did a good job selecting the reviewers.
Motivation:
As always, a speedier review would be appreciated, but communication with the editor was always very good!
Motivation:
Review took long and the reviewers comments did not suggest much about generalisability though it was rejected as not generalisable enough
Motivation:
It took the action editor 1 full month after all reviews were submitted to let us know the outcome. One reviewer didn't even read the paper properly. Never again
Motivation:
The answer was just a generic "stock" email without any explication. It was just saying "we think that your manuscript would be a better fit for another journal".
Motivation:
The editor said that was not perfectly fitting with the journal for the lack of molecular mechanism. So s/he suggested to transfer it to NAR Cancer because better fitting for our topic.
Motivation:
Too long a wait period for a desk reject. Very generic reason given for rejection. In the future, I would not submit to Nature Neuroscience unless I am relatively much more sure about acceptance.
Motivation:
The response for desk reject was rather prompt!
Motivation:
I have published previously in Applied Energy, but something has changed.
For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications.
Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these.
I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text.
The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.
For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications.
Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these.
I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text.
The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very kind response of the reviewer.
They could place at the website that they only accept multiple experiment manuscripts.
They could place at the website that they only accept multiple experiment manuscripts.
Motivation:
The editors apologized for the delay, which was mainly due to the summer break.
Motivation:
It took too long period for review process. Additionally, one of the reviewers did not provide specific comments, but merely gave some general opinions, which even implied discrimination against our case selection. We guess he/she filled with disdain for cases in developing countries.