Reviews for "Expert Systems with Applications"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Expert Systems with Applications n/a n/a 17.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Expert Systems with Applications 60.6
weeks
65.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: In the review reports it was so clear that the reviewers invested serious time and effort with both initial and revised version of the manuscript. Frankly, I was surprised what details they were noticing, like: at one paragraph I've referenced wrong source by accident (Mendeley for LibreOffice has tricky interface), a reviewer noticed that the source does not correspond to the sentence where the citation was. To provide right perspective: the revised version of the paper had 108 references and more than 25k words, the paragraph is in the middle of the paper, covering less relevant aspect of the research - it wasn't part of the main chapters! This is what I perceive as top level professionalism! Here, don't get it wrong: it was one of very few objections being technical/formal in nature - the majority of the remarks were very concrete objections on the methodology, adopted methods, design decisions.... really, to produce such feedback you have to read the paper carefully and not only once. How hard it was to follow and understand the initial version - I became fully aware few months later, when had to translate it and integrate in the PhD thesis. If my head was exploding - then it couldn't be an easy task for the reviewers. In addition, they were not giving just objections / points that have to be improved, but also few very constructive ideas / directions / advises. Also, it is worth to mention that there was significant overlap in objections given by two reviewers - unlike with some other journal where I got conflicting requests in the same review iteration.

Related to the question on rejection motivation, I would expand on the selected answer:
+ changes were not significant enough for several points (cca: 2/10) (here I left out "considered" intentionally, as I do agree with the reviewers - the revision deadline forced me sent it unpolished)
+ with revision, two new objections surfaced (the reviewers really gave solid arguments why these are critical, couldn't agree more - once they made me aware in the feedback)
+ the research is interesting (all parties stated it in both review iterations), but it was clear even to me that theoretical contribution is not that significant

(btw. the latest IF of the journal is around 4!). As a reviewer well noticed in the second feedback: "combination of several practical and basic steps, ... ... with some improvements... but can't be considered as a solid contribution...".

Despite being rejected (both reviewers clearly stated in the second feedback that it should be rejected - with very sound arguments), I can't find anything negative in the whole review process. Only criticism that I could state is about the submission web interface/system, that is outdated and very buggy: it accepts only obsolete document formats, provides step by step instructions that are confusing and conflicting to each other. It took, in total - for both submissions - more than 12 hours to get proper PDF document for my final approval (note that I'm using LibreOffice, not MS Office - so, it was probably huge part of the adventure) - but that is, in fact, the issue of the publisher's older version of submission system. Regarding the editorial board and the reviewers: it is the most professionally carried out review process - out of four I've experienced in the last two years (all journals had IF above 1). With some other journals, I had reviewers that were reading "diagonally" - even abstract - more than half of their objections were simply: not true (it happens when you do not really read the text in front of you). So, such dramatic difference between this journal and them - is my main motivation to invest time and write all of this.
Expert Systems with Applications n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Expert Systems with Applications n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: my very this paper after publication in other journal got cited by a paper of this journal within a month & they told me NOT FIT !!!!
Expert Systems with Applications 22.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected