Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
7 reports
Rejected
2026
Motivation:
Personally, the prestige the journal holds is not reflected in their review process. Expect 1-2 reviewers; the comments were too general. Even a reviewer copy-pasted their comment two times just to increase the feedback, and the editor forwarded the comments as is without even checking the duplicates. For example, a reviewer's comments were like the following: Data Selection Bias (Major Issue): Adoption behavior is unexplained; the model only uses repository-level metrics. This is not the way to justify the rejection. I personally suggest not wasting time to submit to this journal. I agree that rejection is natural in academic publishing, but without justification, rejecting someone's idea is not what EAAI is known for.
78.6 weeks
78.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
The review process for our paper has been deeply disappointing and unfair. Here's a summary of what transpired:
First Review Round:
Our paper was reviewed by three reviewers. Two of them provided constructive, well-reasoned, and positive feedback, which we addressed by implementing the recommended changes.
The third reviewer, however, provided harsh and puzzling feedback, questioning the mathematical foundations of our work and criticizing the lack of derivations for certain equations. These equations, however, were standard equations in our field, properly cited, and not novel contributions from our paper. This strongly suggests that the reviewer lacked expertise in the subject area of our paper.
Second Review Round:
Unfortunately, the two constructive reviewers did not review our revised paper, depriving us of the opportunity to receive their assessment of the changes they requested. Instead, three new reviewers were assigned:
Reviewer #R9 provided only minor comments regarding formatting but requested we cite a paper unrelated to our work.
Another reviewer requested numerous modifications, which we implemented over two weeks.
Reviewer #R11, astonishingly, provided comments that clearly referenced a completely different paper.
In our resubmission letter, we explicitly raised concerns about Reviewer #R11’s mismatch and requested their removal due to their evident error in assessing a different article.
Final Decision (After 6 Months):
The editor rejected the paper, basing the decision on Reviewer #R11’s comments, which again pertained to a different paper. It is clear the editor either did not read or disregarded our request to exclude Reviewer #R11 from the process.
Reviewer #R9 returned the paper for yet another revision due to supposed minor formatting issues and repeated their demand to cite the same unrelated paper. This raises significant ethical concerns, as it appears Reviewer #R9 was using the review process to promote their own work.
This process has been deeply disheartening. Months of work have been dismissed due to a flawed and mismanaged review process. It is especially disappointing to encounter such negligence and unprofessionalism in a reputed journal from a prestigious publisher.
First Review Round:
Our paper was reviewed by three reviewers. Two of them provided constructive, well-reasoned, and positive feedback, which we addressed by implementing the recommended changes.
The third reviewer, however, provided harsh and puzzling feedback, questioning the mathematical foundations of our work and criticizing the lack of derivations for certain equations. These equations, however, were standard equations in our field, properly cited, and not novel contributions from our paper. This strongly suggests that the reviewer lacked expertise in the subject area of our paper.
Second Review Round:
Unfortunately, the two constructive reviewers did not review our revised paper, depriving us of the opportunity to receive their assessment of the changes they requested. Instead, three new reviewers were assigned:
Reviewer #R9 provided only minor comments regarding formatting but requested we cite a paper unrelated to our work.
Another reviewer requested numerous modifications, which we implemented over two weeks.
Reviewer #R11, astonishingly, provided comments that clearly referenced a completely different paper.
In our resubmission letter, we explicitly raised concerns about Reviewer #R11’s mismatch and requested their removal due to their evident error in assessing a different article.
Final Decision (After 6 Months):
The editor rejected the paper, basing the decision on Reviewer #R11’s comments, which again pertained to a different paper. It is clear the editor either did not read or disregarded our request to exclude Reviewer #R11 from the process.
Reviewer #R9 returned the paper for yet another revision due to supposed minor formatting issues and repeated their demand to cite the same unrelated paper. This raises significant ethical concerns, as it appears Reviewer #R9 was using the review process to promote their own work.
This process has been deeply disheartening. Months of work have been dismissed due to a flawed and mismanaged review process. It is especially disappointing to encounter such negligence and unprofessionalism in a reputed journal from a prestigious publisher.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
- One single review with generalist comments like "You should do more experiments", "You should do more analysis", "There are still typos"..
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
- Very old Interface for application.
+ The tracking system of Elsevier for updates to see which reviewers had accepted or not.
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2022
6.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
In general, the review process was OK. The total duration was reasonable given this field of research.