Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I appreciated the effort and time the reviewers put in to point out some limitations of the manuscript. This will surely be helpful in revising it and submitting it elsewhere.
Motivation:
From the two of reviewers, the first reviewer gave valuable scientific comments, it is so encouraging to extend my knowledge. I really pay my sincere thanks to first reviewer.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.
Motivation:
My paper was desk-rejected by the editor for being a poor fit, without any meaningful feedback or explanation as to why that was the case. At least they didn't take long.
Motivation:
My article was rejected after two review rounds. However, I already convinced two of my three reviewers after the first round. In addition, it is my believe that the editor could have known before sending my paper back to the last reviewer that my changes would not satisfy this reviewer and he should have decided to either accept or reject my paper immediately after I resubmitted the second time. Lastly, the quality of some of the arguments of that final revision was very low.
Motivation:
Though the review process was not exceptionally quick, and I had to follow up with the editor about 6 weeks after the submission, I thought the review process was fair, and the editors always promptly responded to my queries. I thought the editorial process was very speedy and efficient.
Motivation:
I was satisfied with the review process. The communication with the journal was effective, I was informed precisely about the progress of the review and publishing process.
Motivation:
The review process was slow due to one referee not responding on time. Otherwise, the manuscript would had been accepted two months before. The editor could have, in principle, accelerate the process, since the requested revisions were insignificant (although the reviewer ticked "major revisions" and then disappeared).
Motivation:
Two reviewers were involved. The first one was aggressive sending 15 paragraphs of criticisms regarding fairly everything in the manuscript. The report was full of sarcasm against the author. Fairly unprofessional. The second reviewer was more constructive, but rated the manuscript as not urgent enough. The editor chose to reject the manuscript.
Motivation:
Very long review process, though painless. Took 9 months to see the paper publihed after submission. Way too slow for the field.
Motivation:
Long review process but fast publication after acceptance
Motivation:
The process took three months. A bit slow, but with a good and smooth outcome.
Motivation:
A reasonably quick handling process. The reviews were thoughtful.
Motivation:
There were two reviewers. I got an impression that none of them took the time to read the manuscript attentively. The criticisms were regarding the methodology of research and the reviewer misinterpreted some details based on the report. Both reports were surprisingly similar, like they were written together.
Motivation:
The process was quite quick, 1.5 months overall. The editor did not send for additional review after I implemented revisions.
Motivation:
good and reputed journal
Motivation:
Editor's input was minimal (essentially a proxy of the reviewer). A single reviewer was involved in the process initially and a second added later on. Minor revisions listed as Major.
Motivation:
Associate Editor William Kath said "I have read through your manuscript and, unfortunately, in my opinion it is not within the scope of the journal. Specifically, it appears that the paper is almost entirely focused on analysis without showing how the results are relevant to some specific physical or engineering application. What physical insight or application advance does this mathematical result provide? This application component should be a substantial part of any manuscript submitted to the SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, as indicated by the editorial policy. I'm sorry that I must reject it for publication. It is possible, of course, that another journal, such as Physical Review or one of the IEEE journals, would find it appropriate."
Motivation:
The referee said "The subject is of interest and the material is worth publishing in a journal of a good standing. However, JDE is not appropriate: the main strength of the paper is not in the direction of technical of conceptual analytic innovations, but more in the direction of physical modelling."
The main problem with this report is that the paper contains both technical and conceptual analytic innovations in the field of differential equations. Based on the referee opinion the paper was rejected.
The main problem with this report is that the paper contains both technical and conceptual analytic innovations in the field of differential equations. Based on the referee opinion the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
Editor in Chief Horng-Tzer Yau said "I regret to inform you that this topic is not of direct interest to CMP's intended audience. Your paper is more suitable to an applied math or applied physics journal. Mathematical physics is a vast field, and while we have tried to extend our coverage as much as possible, our scope is limited by the editorial board member's particular domains of interest. CMP has a substantial backlog of accepted papers. In an effort to reduce the backlog, we unfortunately cannot accept all of the good works that are submitted. We therefore cannot accept this article for publication."
Motivation:
The main bad thing with the reviewing process is that the editor and his assistants cannot find qualified reviewers. After first round of reviewing the referee said "I think that the topic is relevant and that an analysis of TM modes in
nonlinear planar waveguides would be interesting for the readers of
Physical Review A. Also, I think that the obtained results are
trustworthy. However, in my opinion the article is poorly structured,
has a tedious presentation, it lacks "physics..."
The other referee also evaluated the results favourably. But then the referees began to discuss side issues like poor structure, tedious presentation and so on. The outcome of their work is rejecting.
nonlinear planar waveguides would be interesting for the readers of
Physical Review A. Also, I think that the obtained results are
trustworthy. However, in my opinion the article is poorly structured,
has a tedious presentation, it lacks "physics..."
The other referee also evaluated the results favourably. But then the referees began to discuss side issues like poor structure, tedious presentation and so on. The outcome of their work is rejecting.