Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
EIC requested manuscript be reduced to a Technical Note for expedited Review. After reformulation, the submitted Technical Note was reviewed by a single assistant Editor who confessed ignorance of the content, yet issued a verdict to "reject without resubmit". EIC and assistants need to communicate and stop wasting authors' time. Claimed journal rejection rates should be judged with skepticism.
4.3 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
My experience with the editorial handling was very poor. The manuscript was initially submitted on 26 December 2025 and went through two revision rounds. The second revision was submitted on 18 May 2026 and addressed only four remaining focused comments.
After this revision, the manuscript remained under review for several months without a clear editorial timeline. Multiple attempts were made by both the corresponding author and the supervisor to obtain information from the journal. A formal complaint was subsequently submitted to Springer Nature and escalated to the editorial team. Only after this escalation were we informed that a previous reviewer had been invited again and had apparently not yet accepted the invitation.
After almost nine months from the original submission, and without a reliable timeline for completion of the review process, we decided to withdraw the manuscript on 22 September 2026.
The main problem was not the scientific review itself, but the prolonged editorial handling and lack of communication. Based on this experience, I would not submit to this journal again.
After this revision, the manuscript remained under review for several months without a clear editorial timeline. Multiple attempts were made by both the corresponding author and the supervisor to obtain information from the journal. A formal complaint was subsequently submitted to Springer Nature and escalated to the editorial team. Only after this escalation were we informed that a previous reviewer had been invited again and had apparently not yet accepted the invitation.
After almost nine months from the original submission, and without a reliable timeline for completion of the review process, we decided to withdraw the manuscript on 22 September 2026.
The main problem was not the scientific review itself, but the prolonged editorial handling and lack of communication. Based on this experience, I would not submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
The editor’s decision was very prompt (within two days), which we greatly appreciate.
Motivation:
Very slow and unresponsive communication. Apparently, this journal is struggling with the volume of submissions - they needed 2 months and provided one line feedback that although the topic was interesting, it did not fit the scope (which was a debatable...)
Please be prepared for longer than usual waiting time if you submit and rejection after 2 months!
Please be prepared for longer than usual waiting time if you submit and rejection after 2 months!
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 8 May 2026. On 11 August, after 95 days, the coordinating editor requested straightforward reference and formatting corrections before external review. No substantive scientific revisions were requested. I submitted the corrected manuscript and a point-by-point response the following day, on 12 August.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
An email inquiring about the status of the review sent on 9 September remained unanswered as of 6 October. The manuscript remained at “Editor Assigned” until the status changed to “Editor Invited,” dated 5 October.
On 6 October, nearly five months after the original submission and almost eight weeks after resubmission, I requested withdrawal. At that point, external peer review had not been confirmed, and I had received no explanation of the delay. Withdrawal confirmation is pending at the time of writing.
The requested corrections were clearly specified and straightforward to implement. However, the prolonged editorial processing and lack of a response to my status inquiry led me to seek another journal.
Motivation:
The lengthy peer-review process was balanced by the high calibre of the selected reviewers, who are experts in the field.
Motivation:
The process was faster than I expected.
Submit: May 3
All reviewers assigned: May 18
Got the review reports: June 6
Major Revise then resubmit: Aug 8
Review complete: Sep 7
Editor informed all the reviewers accept: Sep 9
Minor revise resubmit: Sep 15
Accept decision: Oct 5
Grateful that the editor and the reviewers handled it smoothly.
Submit: May 3
All reviewers assigned: May 18
Got the review reports: June 6
Major Revise then resubmit: Aug 8
Review complete: Sep 7
Editor informed all the reviewers accept: Sep 9
Minor revise resubmit: Sep 15
Accept decision: Oct 5
Grateful that the editor and the reviewers handled it smoothly.
Motivation:
the overall process was quite professional. the problems occured because of some of the reviewers. one was revoked (disappeared after the first round), and the other one sent the wrong report and thus dismissed. as a result, they were replaced by new ones, and this cost me some additional time. still, the editor was able to organize everything at the end.
Motivation:
The entire process took almost 150 days but nearly 2/3 of the time the manuscript was with the editor either before peer review or after. The editor was not very efficient.
Motivation:
They should read the article
Motivation:
One of the best publication experiences I have ever had. Editor and the reviewers were all experts in the field; the comments were professional and constructive.
Motivation:
Although the article was rejected, the reviewers provided very useful comments to help improve the text.
Motivation:
Please review the paper normally.
Motivation:
Fast turnaround time
n/a
n/a
163 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The manuscript was desk-rejected after more than five months, which we consider an unnecessarily lengthy period for an editorial decision.
Motivation:
No review occurred. Algorithmic screening rejected the manuscript since "insufficient" citation of the home journal was in the submitted manuscript.
Motivation:
The journal no longer accepts review papers, e.g., literature reviews, systematic reviews, bibliometric reviews, etc.
Motivation:
The journal is very good! I liked the process, it was fast. The first round of reviews was HELL ON EARTH but helped to improve my paper a LOT! I am very thankful to the journal´s team. I definitly advise to try to publish here! :)
Motivation:
The reviewer’s comments were very constructive, and I believe the paper has improved significantly. On the other hand, perhaps due to the difficulty of finding reviewers, there was only one reviewer. It is somewhat disappointing that I couldn't get more feedback to improve the paper further or gain insights for future plans.
Motivation:
Desk reject after two months, immediately after we e-mailed the relevant editor directly (after receiving no reply on a message sent within the submission communication system)
Motivation:
The editorial process was very long. After two months, a decision was made without sending the manuscript to reviewers. Finally we got a rejection without saying that it is rejected, as we intended to publish a perspective, while the editor thought they would like to consider it as a 'Progress'. Since the guidelines for a Progress were significantly more restrictive than a Perspective, the editors basically asked us to take our manuscript fully apart. We finally withdrew the manuscript. For this kind of decision, 2 months of waiting is way to long.
Motivation:
The rejection letter says that the comments will be at the end of the email, but there aren't any, so I don't know the real reason for the rejection or even how to try to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editor/editorial office alleged that we had copied others' published work, but provided no supporting evidence. The manuscript was rejected within 20 hours after submission. Beware of this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were easy to address but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.