Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
References weren't all able to be verified from the original entry, a
Motivation:
My manuscript received careful attention from the editors and reviewers, who provided numerous highly valuable suggestions that significantly improved its quality. Their efficiency was also commendable, making them a worthy consideration for many researchers.
Motivation:
This journal's review process is both rapid and thorough. The reviewers offer valuable insights that enhance the clarity and informativeness of the manuscript. The submission experience is smooth and enjoyable, making this journal highly recommended for digital-related manuscripts.
Motivation:
This journal offers a swift and transparent review process, which allows authors to follow the provided instructions to refine their original manuscripts. It is highly recommended for submitting healthcare-related research to this journal.
13.0 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editorial team was professional, and I am grateful to the editors and reviewers for their friendly communication and efforts to make our article more transparent and better.
Motivation:
Think more and write, will definitely help.
Motivation:
Very thorough review.
Motivation:
The review and publication process was excessively lengthy, it took 20 months from initial submission to publication. Throughout the process, I had to inquire several times about the status of the manuscript. Issues included trouble securing reviewers, lack of timely information on the process, and important emails (including reviewer comments) repeatedly "getting lost" because they were sent to the wrong address (although I explicitly pointed out the problem to the editor). The editor's replies were always friendly and professional, but the whole communication process leaves room for improvement. Also in the current state, the online submission system is a shell with little to no benefits to authors - there is a lack of transparency, communication and reviews are not posted within the system, and changes to contact information (such as update of the email adress) take no effect.
Motivation:
The whole handling procedure was very unprofessional. When the journal did not provide reports after 3 months we inquired and did not manage to get any concrete information about the status of the manuscript. The journal seemingly went for a delay strategy. Direct contact with the handling editor was not possible. Since we tried this journal for the first time, we lost trust and decided to end the process.
Motivation:
If you are considering submitting your research to Soft Computing, think twice. Our experience with this journal was marked by extreme delays, poor communication, and a complete lack of accountability. After submitting our manuscript, we waited four months to receive a major revision decision. This was reasonable, and we promptly revised and resubmitted our paper, expecting a timely response. However, what followed was months of complete silence. Despite multiple follow-ups, the only response we received from the editorial office was a generic message stating, "Your manuscript is under review."
After waiting one full year, we escalated the issue to Springer, only to discover that one of the reviewers had never responded, and the journal had simply left our paper in limbo without reassigning it to another reviewer. It was only after over 20 follow-ups and another year of waiting that the manuscript was finally accepted. Even then, it took four more months for the paper to appear online. In total, the process from initial submission to final publication took an astonishing three years. By the time our work was published, several similar studies had already appeared, severely diminishing our research’s novelty and impact.
Soft Computing Journal's editorial process is unprofessional, inefficient, and unresponsive. If you care about the relevance and timeliness of your research, avoid this journal at all costs. There are many reputable alternatives that respect authors’ time and contributions—this is not one of them.
After waiting one full year, we escalated the issue to Springer, only to discover that one of the reviewers had never responded, and the journal had simply left our paper in limbo without reassigning it to another reviewer. It was only after over 20 follow-ups and another year of waiting that the manuscript was finally accepted. Even then, it took four more months for the paper to appear online. In total, the process from initial submission to final publication took an astonishing three years. By the time our work was published, several similar studies had already appeared, severely diminishing our research’s novelty and impact.
Soft Computing Journal's editorial process is unprofessional, inefficient, and unresponsive. If you care about the relevance and timeliness of your research, avoid this journal at all costs. There are many reputable alternatives that respect authors’ time and contributions—this is not one of them.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, my experience with this journal was far from satisfactory. It took more than three months for the editor to simply state that they were not interested in the topic of my paper! This level of delay and lack of transparency in the review process reflects a disorganized and inefficient system, which is unacceptable for a scientific or professional journal.
Journals should act more responsibly and provide timely responses instead of wasting months of researchers' time. If you are looking for a professional and responsive journal, I strongly recommend staying away from this one.
Journals should act more responsibly and provide timely responses instead of wasting months of researchers' time. If you are looking for a professional and responsive journal, I strongly recommend staying away from this one.
Motivation:
Editorial process extremely long. Rejection provided after asking for input regarding the re-evaluation of the re-submitted article after almost 2 years on being in re-submission.
Motivation:
Very quick process. Review quality was overall good, sometimes missing the limitations of the word limit at this journal. Editor engaged with the paper and highlighted most important changes to be made.
Motivation:
The review process and the assistance with blinding were both handled well. The reviewers were knowledgeable and gave constructive criticism.
Motivation:
Reviewers gave very brief comments saying the findings were incremental and editor rejected our submission. No further comments by editor were provided.
Motivation:
Editorial process was prompt but after requesting four potential reviewers be excluded from the Reviewer pool, one of them was still selected as a reviewer. The inclusion of this Reviewer led to a laborious back-and-forth that did not improve the quality of the manuscript. The other two reviewers made many comments that improved the manuscript. The paper was accepted but I don't plan to submit to NPP while the current Editors remain.
Motivation:
Great - fastest desk rejects I know. Sad they don't publish much policy.
Motivation:
Manuscript took a while to get accepted and took forever to find reviewers. In the end, they found reviewers which gave decent feedback and improved the quality of the manuscript. While the review process itself isn't bad, the journals management was horrendous. For example, they charged the manuscript to my department (which they paid) and confirmed the receipt to me. 2 months later, they sent an invoice saying the payment has not been made. When I told them that and forwarded the details to them, they claimed that they needed more details (like what other details do you need?). Worst of all, they were very lacklustre to even try and locate the payment that has already been made and confirmed by them. When I told them of whom the payment was made from, they simply said "Can you provide details like credit card to confirm?", saying that "We get a lot of manuscripts from [my institution] and therefore it will be difficult for us to locate the payment". You mean to tell me you don't keep track of who and payments and to what manuscript the payment was made to? You simply took the money? They expected me to go and get my department's credit card and provide them details to them. Anyone with a brain cell knows that no department will do that. If not I will just save the details into my account and charge them for anything and everything.
To make matters worse, I left the institute when this happened, so this further complicated matters, of which scientific reports did not seem to bother to care.
To make matters worse, I left the institute when this happened, so this further complicated matters, of which scientific reports did not seem to bother to care.
Motivation:
The editor is vers responsive and respond to emails fast with clear instruction.
Motivation:
Quick and good editorial responses.