Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was absolutely awful. After three rounds and over a year and a half in the process, the paper was rejected based on the opinion of only one of three reviewers. In the prior round the editor informed us to focus on other aspects not related to the first reviewer and informed us the revision was 'minor' only to go back on their word and reject the paper for the first reviewer's comments anyway. I would strongly discourage anyone from submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The rejection pointed out something we could have addressed without much difficulty. Still, a quick decision might be better than going through a long review process leading to the same result.
Motivation:
I do not know why！
Motivation:
disagree with the rejection reason that it does not fit with the journal's aims and scope.
Motivation:
Over the course of a full year, the journal was unable to complete the review process. Communication from the editorial office was sparse and inconsistent: responses to our inquiries alternated between “we have found a second reviewer and their report is overdue” and “we are currently looking for a second reviewer.” over the course of 8 months. The editor‑in‑chief did not respond, and no handling editor was ever confirmed. When contacted, the guest editors reported that they were unaware of our manuscript and could not advise who was handling it. Based on this experience, I cannot recommend submitting manuscripts to this journal. We have withdrawn our paper.
Motivation:
Generic rejection email with transfer to other journals offered
Motivation:
The process was fast but it felt completely unfair as our work had done significantly more than previous work on the journal regarding the same topic. We also used their template as instructed. All this wait for an ambiguous feedback was really a letdown. Not submitting here again. There are better alternatives to submit to from Elsevier.
Motivation:
After 4 months, they stated that they were unable to obtain comments from subject experts, and didn't find enough reviewer and decided to reject the paper
Motivation:
The editor gave reasons why the article was not suitable for the journal and constructive critique.
Motivation:
The first decision took 7 full weeks with no further assessment.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround, note that they accept only around 10% of submissions. The editor felt that the manuscript's current version " does not have adequate innovative contributions to statistical theory and methods."
Motivation:
Only explanation was that the journal receives a large volume of submissions, so they need to make decisions based on aspects such as novelty /significance, critical engagement with methodological literature, and substantive depth of analysis.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, it took 9 months to review my manuscript, and it was ultimately rejected. I followed up with the editor twice, and each time I was told it was still under review. The long delay was frustrating and discouraging, and I hope my colleagues consider how much time and energy such delays can take.
Motivation:
After nearly 10 months in-review without reviewer response and multiple requests for updates from the journal, I decided to withdraw the article. A colleague at the journal has remarked about the poor management of the journal, and while much of what I cite comes from BMC HSR, I no longer have confidence I will receive a decision.
Motivation:
Very brief and non-specific feedback given.
Motivation:
I found the average time to decision listed on the website to be entirely misleading. While I'm thrilled that my paper was accepted, I wouldn't recommend the process to anyone. I initially submitted my paper in October 2024 and received reviews and an initial decision to reject in January 2025. This decision got overturned b/c one of the reviewers did not review the correct manuscript. As required by the journal, I had uploaded an unpublished paper that was cited in my manuscript as supplementary material for the reviewers. One of the reviewers mistakenly reviewed only that paper instead of my actual submission. I was pleasantly surprised that the editor apologized when I pointed this out and offered to have it reviewed correctly, however, I was really displeased with the lack of clarity about the timeline. I explicitly stated that I was only interested in completing the review process if I could get reviews back within a month, and even though I asked several times to confirm the expected timeline, I never got a straight answer. They requested major revisions after a few months (April) and once I submitted those (June), they were unable to find the original reviewers and insisted on waiting to find an additional new reviewer.
Throughout this process, whenever the portal was updated to indicate that reviews were received, I had to send multiple follow-up emails over the course of a month or more to ask about when I could expect a decision. The responses I received often stated that they would remind the editor that the reviews were in, and that I would get a response "soon". "Soon" typically meant several weeks.
I would not submit a manuscript to this journal again. The communication regarding the manuscript handling was poor, and the process took far too long.
Throughout this process, whenever the portal was updated to indicate that reviews were received, I had to send multiple follow-up emails over the course of a month or more to ask about when I could expect a decision. The responses I received often stated that they would remind the editor that the reviews were in, and that I would get a response "soon". "Soon" typically meant several weeks.
I would not submit a manuscript to this journal again. The communication regarding the manuscript handling was poor, and the process took far too long.
Motivation:
The desk rejection took a little longer than expected. The editor mentioned that while they "greatly appreciate the quality and effort of your work, we feel that it does not engage closely enough with the generalist political science audience of EJPR." This seemed like a standard statement, offering little further comment.
Motivation:
The journal website says it will be 96 days from submission to acceptance, and it took them twice that. The reason we sent our paper to this journal is in the hopes of it being quick.
Motivation:
In the first round of review, the referee provided a constructive report indicating that the results are novel and interesting, comments to improve the paper were provided and most of them addressed, a point-by-point response was provided.
After the revision and resubmission the associate editor decided to send the paper to another reviewer who only provided a "quick opinion" (no report at all). Most of the "heckler" comments were wrong or irrelevant to the novel part of the paper, so he suggested to reject the paper & the associate editor followed the new referee opinion to reject the paper.
All what they did was wasting my time and the original reviewer time and efforts.
After the revision and resubmission the associate editor decided to send the paper to another reviewer who only provided a "quick opinion" (no report at all). Most of the "heckler" comments were wrong or irrelevant to the novel part of the paper, so he suggested to reject the paper & the associate editor followed the new referee opinion to reject the paper.
All what they did was wasting my time and the original reviewer time and efforts.
Motivation:
The reviewers were polite and provided reasonable comments.
Motivation:
There were four reviewers. One recommended a “Minor Revision,” while three recommended a “Major Revision.” The process went back and forth between “In Peer Review” and “Required Review Completed” several times, and the first round of peer review took a very long time. The comments ranged from simple content to issues requiring additional experiments.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected without any justification or report after three months.
Motivation:
The submission has been reviewed by one of the editors, and a reasonable report has been provided.
Motivation:
The submission was rejected after two months without any consideration
Motivation:
The decision letter suggested looking at reviewers' comments, which were not available to the authors, even after an additional request.
Motivation:
I will not do more than paste the dates of the review process
Submission received: 28 May 2024
Submission passed technical check: 31 May 2024
Editor assigned: 31 May 2024
First reviewer(s) invited: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer(s) accepted: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer report(s) received: 03 Oct 2024
(Four months to receive reviewer reports)
Submission withdrawn: 19 Nov 2025
(More than one year from receiving the reviewers' reports without making a decision)
Submission received: 28 May 2024
Submission passed technical check: 31 May 2024
Editor assigned: 31 May 2024
First reviewer(s) invited: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer(s) accepted: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer report(s) received: 03 Oct 2024
(Four months to receive reviewer reports)
Submission withdrawn: 19 Nov 2025
(More than one year from receiving the reviewers' reports without making a decision)
Motivation:
June 3, 2025: I submitted a manuscript to this journal (I had previously had a positive experience, both in terms of editorial handling and review timelines). A 1st reviewer clearly completed the review within approx. 20 days. From that point onward, I received no further information. I attempted 2 times to contact the Editor of the journal, but the system does not provide any functional correspondence channel (the Editorial Manager link leads to an error page). Direct emails to the Editor’s institutional address also went unanswered. No member of the Editorial Team/Section/Associate Editor was reachable. I interacted with Elsevier representatives (each time different) on 21 September, 15 October, 9 December, and 15 December 2025. On 23 December, I was informed that problems had occurred in the peer-review process; I was offered apologies and assured that a new reviewer had been appointed. On 12 January 2026, I received a rejection decision accompanied by only one single review report, evidently the original review that was completed back in June. Hence, from the end of June until mid-January, I waited for a peer-review process that, de facto, never took place.
Motivation:
While desk rejection is not a big issue, I find the Editor's practice highly unprofessional. I contacted Elsevier support to check whether there is an issue with the paper's status not changing after almost 7 weeks, given that 12 days was the median first decision time advertised on the Journal page. I did not ask for the Editor to be contacted.
The next day, on a saturday morning, less than 10 hrs after i made the contact with Elsevier support team, the paper was rejected without any reason. What i can say is that Editors need to be held accoutable for their behaviour. If the paper has to be rejected, why waste 2 months of the authors' time when your median first decision time advertised was 12 days? The Editor did not read the paper and, I guess, was annoyed that an enquiry was made about it. Although I heard about the journal's poor practice of selective pal publication, I felt science should prevail, but I was wrong.
What is the essence of Elsevier support if authors can ot make a polite enquiry? This is poor governance, and I find the conduct highly unprofessional.
The next day, on a saturday morning, less than 10 hrs after i made the contact with Elsevier support team, the paper was rejected without any reason. What i can say is that Editors need to be held accoutable for their behaviour. If the paper has to be rejected, why waste 2 months of the authors' time when your median first decision time advertised was 12 days? The Editor did not read the paper and, I guess, was annoyed that an enquiry was made about it. Although I heard about the journal's poor practice of selective pal publication, I felt science should prevail, but I was wrong.
What is the essence of Elsevier support if authors can ot make a polite enquiry? This is poor governance, and I find the conduct highly unprofessional.
Motivation:
A short reasoning statement would be better to give an idea on next submissions.
Motivation:
Editors said that "we are primarily assessing the suitability of the study based on the editorial criteria of the journal: considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness. In this case, we do not feel that your paper has matched our criteria ".
Motivation:
The editor raised an interesting point regarding comparison with at least one other existing method. The comparison would be interesting. It would have been nice had the method(s) been listed. The editor admitted that the proposed method was interesting.
Motivation:
i submitted the article, it was stuck on "with editor" status for 120 days. I sent emails nobody answered. Only after i sent emails to the IT of npj, they answer and told that they found revierersand the review will start. Didn't believed them, and Withrow my article.
Motivation:
Reviewer #1 provided balanced, professional, and genuinely constructive feedback. Reviewer #2 raised some potentially legitimate methodological concerns; however, these were severely undermined by an unnecessarily hostile, dismissive, and at times impolite tone that falls below the standards expected of academic peer review. Rather than offering constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript, the reviewer repeatedly impugns the authors’ competence, honesty, and reliability—e.g., asserting that the authors’ “carelessness … ends up calling into question a lot of other aspects of the paper,” that the reader is left wondering “if they’re this careless here, are they just as careless even in the data,” and even stating “I’m not honestly sure that they did” the transcription/glossing correctly. The reviewer also used accusatory rhetorical questions and sarcastic framing (“Well, was it sold in an auction or towed?”; “Well, is it proximal or distal?”; “Is it a different dialect after all? Or what is going on?”), and escalated from critique to disparagement (“the lack of attention to detail makes the authors appear unreliable,” “I’m not even sure if they analyzed the demonstratives correctly either,” “I have to really question this”). This approach is inappropriate and unprofessional, and it risks biasing editorial decisions by shifting the focus from correctable issues in the manuscript to blanket judgments about the authors’ reliability and good faith.
Motivation:
I think manuscripts was well fit to scope and audience. the answer i got, felt like the manuscript wasn't really read.