Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The managing editor was professional, courteous and fair, the reviewers tough and demanding but the experiments they requested substantially improved my paper.
Motivation:
Three high-quality reviews (a bit delayed over christmas).
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
Motivation:
The decision was disappointing, and I do not agree with a large part of the reviewers criticism, but the Journal was fairly fast and professional on handling the MS.
Motivation:
This was an editorial board process rather than external reviewers. Reason for rejection was weak and showed ignorance about theoretical approaches.
Motivation:
Two reviewers finished the first reviewing process and created two reports within 3 months. These reports are nice, pointing out a serious problem and improving the quality of the script.
The revised version was sent to the same reviewer, so that the second reviewing process was fast.
The revised version was sent to the same reviewer, so that the second reviewing process was fast.
Motivation:
No reason was given for why it took four weeks to reject without sending to any reviewers. The manuscript was a good fit for the journal. Upon submission to a comparable journal, it was reviewed with minor edits and accepted for publication within a month.
Motivation:
Editors were polite in their rejection, but a 6 week wait time significantly affected my research time line.
Motivation:
We sent another manuscript and the immediate rejection time was 11 days.
Every time after 7 days I was sent an email where they apologised for a delay to the initial evaluation of our article and that they were working with the editors to ensure further delays to be minimised.
For me 11-13 days for an immediate rejection is an unnecessary time loss.
Every time after 7 days I was sent an email where they apologised for a delay to the initial evaluation of our article and that they were working with the editors to ensure further delays to be minimised.
For me 11-13 days for an immediate rejection is an unnecessary time loss.
Motivation:
Extremely fast and comprehensive review.There was a problem with the second reviewer and the Editor-in-Chief called time on this and have carried this out himself as Reviewer #2.
Motivation:
Though I hope this is not a common practice, I think nobody should experience such an unbelievable ignorance of managing editor to the mails asking about what's going on with the paper (mails sent 4 times after 6 months of silence) which ended with a short justification of rejection.
Motivation:
Timely response with valuable comments
Motivation:
I received three reviews, more or less dealing with different aspects of the manuscript so the review was very complete and helpful. Some of the comments came from more than one referee. I was positively surprised by the speed of the whole process, which took 5 weeks. I would definitely consider submitting again to this journal.
Motivation:
The reviews covered the whole acceptance spectrum, all mostly helpful. One suggested minor revision, another rejection (but actually suggesting some changes), the third one major revision but with only three comments, one of them we did not agree and justify it in the letter to the editor. We did the changes and got it accepted without major issues.
Motivation:
Responsible and timely handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took more than a month to come up with
"This work
does not seem appropriate for a combinatorial journal and
in particular for JCTA
No explanation was given.
"This work
does not seem appropriate for a combinatorial journal and
in particular for JCTA
No explanation was given.
Motivation:
Had a profoundly terrible experience with the editorial process. The review took a long time because the editors wanted a reviewer with a lot of knowledge of the language - this is an excellent idea, and as such I really didn't mind the long turnaround time for the review. The decision was 'accept with minor revisions'; the one review could have been more rigorous, I felt, since it seemed to focus mostly on formatting and typos.
What made the experience unsatisfying was that the editor gave us many additional detailed comments, but only AFTER we had made the necessary revisions and submitted the revised version. These post-hoc comments were extremely unhelpful. As a result, it was 5 months between when the article was accepted and when it finally made it to the copy editor. I will probably end up submitting to the journal again in the future, but I'm already not looking forward to it.
What made the experience unsatisfying was that the editor gave us many additional detailed comments, but only AFTER we had made the necessary revisions and submitted the revised version. These post-hoc comments were extremely unhelpful. As a result, it was 5 months between when the article was accepted and when it finally made it to the copy editor. I will probably end up submitting to the journal again in the future, but I'm already not looking forward to it.
Motivation:
almost 50 days to rejection based on only single review
Motivation:
In the past couple of years many journals are finding it harder to find reviewers, especially in interdisciplinary subjects. Although almost all of them have jumped on the Open Access bandwagon to raise funds, they have cut back on the processing time by having junior and/or unqualified associate editors make quick decisions about whether to even send out papers for external review. This is not good for Science.
Motivation:
The process was well organized, although the first review round could have been shorter
Motivation:
Very fast review process.
Very kind responses from the editor.
Helpful comments from the reviewers
Very kind responses from the editor.
Helpful comments from the reviewers
Motivation:
Very kind editor giving fast responses.
Motivation:
The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.
Motivation:
I felt that waiting 3 months before being informed that the journal could not find reviewers for my paper was slower than necessary.
Motivation:
The editor of our manuscript was responsive and easy to communicate with. However, our paper only received 1 review, which was fairly minimal.
Motivation:
The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.