Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very good reviews and great turnaround time
Motivation:
Rejected immediately due to not broad enough appeal, but the process was quick so we didn't have to wait to long. Offered the option to transfer our paper to another journal within the Nature Publishing Group (Scientific Reports). Overall a smooth and efficient system, though the outcome was not what we hoped.
Motivation:
The reviewers gave constructive comments, but the overall review time was far too long given that their website states an average first review time of under 8 weeks.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and professional. I definitively recommend this Journal.
Motivation:
Responsive Editor who balanced reviewer opinions very nicely and was open to direct contact for clarification on certain issues.
Motivation:
The process was reasonably quick. The first round of reviews were very helpfull, the secound round a bit less. Editors comments were helpfull.
Motivation:
In general the reviews and comments are reasonable, the journal has a great turnaround time
Motivation:
The entire process took a long time and I wish the journal had rejected it sooner, rather than having me go through two rounds of revisions prior to ultimately rejecting it. Also, one of the reviewers thoughts it was fine as is, whereas one of the revisions had only a couple of sticking points. It seemed like the small issues that ultimately led to the paper being rejected were too minor for outright rejection.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Rapid and consistent.
Motivation:
The editors decided that the manuscript was not appropriate / relevant. I wonder why this decision took them 3 months.
Motivation:
The review process went generally smoothly with this journal.
Motivation:
Very qualified and encouraging comments from the reviewers and especially the editor.
Motivation:
At least it was speedy!
Motivation:
Change of Editors between submissions. Very slow: was not sent for review for at least a month and needed prompting by email to get etc.
Motivation:
Fast, easy, painless process. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
Overall, the reviews were fair and highlighted some aspects of the paper that could be improved in order to make it stronger. However, while the senior editor and one of the reviewers were fair in their comments and assessment of the paper, the other reviewer was unduly harsh and critical.
Motivation:
Strong Editorial decision making despite intermediate quality reviews.
Motivation:
We lost too much time with this revision process (without positive results!)
Motivation:
Editor wrote a nice letter. They were unsure how 'interesting' our story was: so it was sent for 'informal external review' to one expert. That expert suggested rejection, so the paper was not sent for formal review. Though disappointing, it was at least decent to have had the Editor consider our ms carefully.
Motivation:
Although the revision process took some time, the editors were very helpful in every aspect, for example they answered my questions immediately and connected me directly with one reviewer to discuss some complex issues of the revision.