Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The time between submitting and getting a decision was very long. It seemed that the journal struggled to find reviewers and when feedback was given, it was a very short contribution by one reviewer.
Motivation:
Although the submitted article was not seen to fit the journal, the editor took care to give an encouraging reply.
Motivation:
Although the article was rejected, the experience was positive in that most of the reviewers (3 out of 4) took the article seriously and offered substantial constructive criticism and advice, which enabled us to improve the paper before submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
Actually one of the reviewers contacted me and we had a discussion over email. Overall the experience was good.
Motivation:
It took almost 18 months from first submission to receive the comments of just two reviewers, and when they arrived they were not constructive comments, indeed not very helpful at all. We lost all faith in the review process with this journal to the extent we decided to withdraw the paper even though it had not been rejected.
Motivation:
The electronic system for manuscript submissions is convinient and clear. When review reports arrived, you get notification on mail. You also can be in touch with the editor/person in charge. All informaition you may need is available. I had no problem with the manuscript submission.
Motivation:
Editor comments were well-justified and included useful suggestions for the paper improvement.
Motivation:
I believe that this work should be published in Nature Physics, because the problem discussed there had general, not specific, character. Nevertheless it was rejected without reviewing. Eventually it has been accepted to APL in spite the fact that it contained criticism of the editors and reviewers of this journal who had accepted earlier an article containing incorrect results, and our comment was devoted just to this issue. The latter is said solely to point out the nobleness and fairness of the Editor of APL.
Motivation:
One reviewer recommended the publication of the article and the second reviewer said that the topic was not suitable for the journal without any other comment.
The editor rejected the paper because the topic was not suitable for the journal.
It took 6 months to decide that the topic was not suitable for the journal.
The editor rejected the paper because the topic was not suitable for the journal.
It took 6 months to decide that the topic was not suitable for the journal.
Motivation:
We had two report, one quite detailed but the suggestions of further developments were not realistic, in particular in relation with the quality of the journal. The second was quite poor.
On the other hand, the process was extremely fast.
On the other hand, the process was extremely fast.
Motivation:
There was only one reviewer commenting on the paper and he obviously did not read the paper, but at most the abstract. The reviewer rejected the paper due to a single sentence in the abstract (which was, I agree, a bad way of putting things), but he would have come to a very different conclusion if he had read the paper.
2.9 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
comments of the reviewers were apprpriate and the time of handling was quite fast
Motivation:
The editor claimed that there was no earlier work on the topic of the paper and hence considered it not fit for the journal.
Motivation:
The reviews were ok
Motivation:
No reason was given as to why the manuscript was not fit for the journal.
Motivation:
The reviews were ok.
Motivation:
I emailed the editors about three months after I submitted the manuscript for information about the status. The editor emailed me back apologizing about the delayed handling of my paper. "Summer absences among reviewers and editors caused problems..". Furthermore, they obtained only two very poor quality reviews. He read my manuscript and sent it to two senior editors to look it over and "hopefully have a (favourable) decision in the coming 2 weeks or so". Two weeks later I got the dissapointing email that my manuscript was rejected after all.
Motivation:
The first review round took several months time, probably because it was difficult for the journal to find reviewers. Once reviewers were located, we iterated back and forth very quickly with revisions, and the suggestions improved the paper. Reviews were both cordial and constructive. I was very happy with the review process.