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 great and the comments added a lot to the manuscript.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
Motivation:
The review process was great and the comments added a lot, the only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review (about 3 months).
Motivation:
Quite decent comments. Review time is reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process is quick. reviewers provide helpful comments.
Motivation:
Very fast and pleasant procedure. Everything went smoothly
Motivation:
The review process was overall good, with progress updates along the way. The editor made useful comments of their own. The reviews were relatively fast and of good quality, although one reviewer was difficult to satisfy on a minor issue.
Motivation:
The editor found three competent reviewers, and the overall speed was on the faster side. We'll tackle the comments and submit to a different journal in a couple of days.
Motivation:
It took a long time for them to even decide if they would send it out for review, but once they sent it out, the entire process moved very quickly and smoothly.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and smooth. The reviews were mostly fair and very helpful in identifying places for improvements. The editor handled the review process professionally.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally very good and greatly improved the paper, although on the second round one reviewer made confident (but incorrect) assertions about the results, so we appreciated that the editor was not overly swayed by these remarks and took a fair and considered view. The review process was a little on the slow side, but much better than how Cognition used to be. We were a little confused about the double blind review process that has recently been introduced. The submission system specifically asks you to confirm that all funding sources are acknowledged in the manuscript, but the manuscript was then returned to us because we included the funding information as requested. Then, after the second round, the editor indicated that the manuscript would be accepted with a small revision and would not undergo further review, but after sitting with Elsevier for a two weeks, the revised manuscript was returned to us again for not being anonymized (even though there was no real need for anonymization at this final stage). So, tip for the future submitters: Make sure everything is totally anonymous all the way to the end, and then fix the acknowledgements and anonymous OSF/prereg links at the proofs stage.
Motivation:
This claims the title of the most dysfunctional manuscript handling in my career, with over 100 submissions. After two months, the paper was still not under review despite several emails to the editorial office. After I offered to suggest ten reviewers, the editorial assistant wrote me that the journal could not take suggestions because it would breach the integrity of the review process. It's an absolute mess of a journal. I strongly advise scholars to steer clear of it as long as the current editorial team is in office.
Motivation:
The prompt and high-quality review of my article in this journal was truly enjoyable.
Motivation:
- Excessively long time until i received a review report
- The review report was kind of short
- More than a year between submission and publication
- The review report was kind of short
- More than a year between submission and publication
Motivation:
This journal meets the important criteria of speed and accuracy in article reviewing.
Motivation:
I was quite disappointed with the process. There was no feedback about any progress on the article (the system continuously said, "Awaiting assignment to editor" or something like that) until we sent repeated inquiries. Finally, we got a desk rejection four months after submission claiming that the article was off-topic. Whether that was the case or not, it should not have taken four months to tell us that.
Motivation:
If you are in a hurry and want to publish in short time. I must prefer this journal. Overall rating: 10/10. Everything was smooth throughout the procedure.
Motivation:
Very poor quality reviews. Two peer reviewers focused on detailing their own subjective experiences rather than evaluating the paper. One other reviewer also appeared not to have read the article.
Motivation:
The manuscript was stuck with the editorial manager for over a month, with zero progress and zero response after three emails. There was no action from the editor either until one more email was sent directly to the editor's email. I received a rejection email from the editor within the same day, and in that email, the editor cited a manuscript that was not mine, i.e., the wrong title.