Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
177 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to the Cognitive Computation journal for its Special Issue on Big Data at the beginning of December 2024. The submission initially progressed through editorial screening, and the online tracking system indicated that the paper was "with the editor." After a month without any further updates, we contacted the journal. At that point, we were informed that the manuscript had passed the initial editorial review and was accepted for external peer review.
Unfortunately, the status of the manuscript remained unchanged for the next five months. During this time, we contacted both the journal and the Special Issue Editor-in-Chief multiple times. While we were reassured that the handling editor was actively searching for reviewers, there was no apparent progress. To assist the process, we provided a comprehensive list of over 20 qualified and field-appropriate reviewer suggestions. However, the journal declined to consider any of them without explaining.
Ultimately, after nearly half a year of inaction, we received a desk rejection, without any external peer review or reviewer feedback. This outcome, following months of editorial delay and lack of transparency, was both disappointing and unprofessional. In our experience, this represents a breakdown in the expected standards of scholarly communication and peer review. We would caution others considering submission to this Special Issue, or the journal more broadly, to be mindful of the substantial editorial inefficiencies we encountered.
Unfortunately, the status of the manuscript remained unchanged for the next five months. During this time, we contacted both the journal and the Special Issue Editor-in-Chief multiple times. While we were reassured that the handling editor was actively searching for reviewers, there was no apparent progress. To assist the process, we provided a comprehensive list of over 20 qualified and field-appropriate reviewer suggestions. However, the journal declined to consider any of them without explaining.
Ultimately, after nearly half a year of inaction, we received a desk rejection, without any external peer review or reviewer feedback. This outcome, following months of editorial delay and lack of transparency, was both disappointing and unprofessional. In our experience, this represents a breakdown in the expected standards of scholarly communication and peer review. We would caution others considering submission to this Special Issue, or the journal more broadly, to be mindful of the substantial editorial inefficiencies we encountered.