Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Editorial decision stated that the work did not represent a sufficient conceptual advance for a general cell biological readership to justify publication in Nature Cell Biology, which leads me to think they did not understand the main message of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The manuscript was promptly rejected by the editor
Motivation:
This manuscript was transferred to Nature Communications at the advice of an editor of another publication within the Nature portfolio. After editorial consideration it was rejected because the editors considered (wrongly) that the manuscript was not sufficiently advanced and would have limited interest.
Motivation:
Our paper was rejected by the editors after an unjustifiably long time because their "editorial opinion is that the findings fall short of reaching the kind of new insights of broad interest that would warrant publication in Genome Biology", a very generic and unhelpful response.
Motivation:
The submission process was quite smooth, although the platform is not really inviting. To be honest, their article template as well as the submission website could benefit from a redesign.
It took a few weeks to get notified that our work was being taken care by an associate editor, then around a month to find two reviewers.
The review reports were "inconsistent" so to say, as one reviewer took 3 pages to motivate his answer while the other one provided a .TXT document of a few lines. Overall, they both agreed that the work was interesting, but probably not really in the scope of the journal. That being said, we were unsure our article would fit their scope, so that was a fair point.
Nonetheless, one reviewer provided very interesting perspectives of improvements, and we were very satisfied to improve our paper thanks to their comments. The submission went well in another journal probably thanks to their input.
It took a few weeks to get notified that our work was being taken care by an associate editor, then around a month to find two reviewers.
The review reports were "inconsistent" so to say, as one reviewer took 3 pages to motivate his answer while the other one provided a .TXT document of a few lines. Overall, they both agreed that the work was interesting, but probably not really in the scope of the journal. That being said, we were unsure our article would fit their scope, so that was a fair point.
Nonetheless, one reviewer provided very interesting perspectives of improvements, and we were very satisfied to improve our paper thanks to their comments. The submission went well in another journal probably thanks to their input.
Motivation:
there were no positives really. Manuscript was sent to two reviewers, the journal rejected it after the first review came in, so they did not even give it a fair chance of review. Not to mention that the first review could have been from a journal editor, so there is no way of telling. it was frustrating indeed. would not submit any work there in the future.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 365.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We waited from November until August for any reaction from the journal. In the Editorial Manager system, the status remained “Received by Editor” the entire time. In August—nine months after submission—we wrote to inquire and announced that we would be drawing back the manuscript. Only then did we finally receive a response, stating that the editors would try to process our submission more quickly. On that very same day, the status in the Editorial Manager changed to “Sent to reviewers” — again, nine months after submission.
We waited another three months, bringing the total time to a full year since submission, but nothing further happened. In November of the following year, we finally withdrew the manuscript for good.
Do not submit to this journal.
We waited another three months, bringing the total time to a full year since submission, but nothing further happened. In November of the following year, we finally withdrew the manuscript for good.
Do not submit to this journal.
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.