Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.3 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2023
Motivation:
My experience with FIP was not so satisfactory. The outcome is that I withdrew the submission.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
The first editor dropped out without any specific reason, and finding a second editor took them a relatively long time.
With regards to the reviewers, I got 3 for the first round. One reviewer endorsed the paper, provided some valuable suggestions and helped to improve the manuscript. One reviewer rejected the paper based on his/her reason without explaining too much. The other reviewer asked me some questions which are impossible to answer. After the major revision (I addressed the issue raised by the first and third reviewers), the third one decided to reject the paper. The editor found a fourth reviewer who did not submit his/her report on time. Then it seemed that WOS decided to put FIP on on-hold, and I decided to withdraw the paper.
4.5 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
6.4 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
My experience with FIP in this case was pretty satisfactory. The editor was extremely efficient, and one of the reviewers provided me lots of helpful suggestions.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 days
Drawn back
2022
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 0.0 days
Drawn back
2022
2.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The experience was great. The editor responded very quickly, the reviewers' suggestions are constructive, and the quality of the article really improved after the revision. I think the quality of the article has been improved.
17.9 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
4.7 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Overall the review process was very smooth. A few things could be improved, e.g. the requirement to put figures at the end of the manuscript (without the captions) instead of inside the body.
7.9 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
In the first round one reviewer provided thoughtful and useful comments, the review of another reviewer was written in a rather rude language, however, we addressed all the comments as well. There were contradictions between the two reviews but the editor made little effort to reconcile them. In the next round the second reviewer was not satisfied with the paper, but he/she did not specify what exactly was wrong. We asked the editor to pay attention to this situation. The second reviewer has withdrawn from the review process, another reviewer was invited. This prolonged the review process drastically, especially because the third reviewer was reviewing an older version of the submission. The third reviewer suggested minor changes which also consisted of inclusion of citations irrelevant to the subject.
The main drawback is that the editor almost does not participate in the review process and does not follow the discussion. Everything depends on whether the reviewers endorse the publication, and the quality of reviews is not monitored.
The main drawback is that the editor almost does not participate in the review process and does not follow the discussion. Everything depends on whether the reviewers endorse the publication, and the quality of reviews is not monitored.
18.7 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The first review round took relatively long, likely as the editor was waiting for a third reviewer. The revise and resubmit came the day I wrote the editor to inquire regarding the expected timeline of the reviews. I really appreciated the interactive forum, as it allowed for more communication with the reviewers. After the first reviews the process was quick and smooth.
11.3 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
26.9 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
After 27 weeks, we received a very positive review and a very negative one. The two reviews were clearly contradictory on several points. Moreover, the negative one was full of factual errors. The editor made no effort to reconcile the contradictions between the two reviews (e.g., by asking us to refute the critiques, by inviting an additional reviewer, or by evaluating the paper the editor himself).
5.9 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Initially it took some time to find reviewers, as the paper was not sent for review for longer than a month. However, communication with the editor during this time was excellent and they were receptive to new reviewer suggestions and generally kept us updated.
The reviews, when they eventually came in, were of high quality, and helped improve the paper. I liked the interactive forum too, I'd like for more publishers to consider this model.
Overall a good experience.
The reviews, when they eventually came in, were of high quality, and helped improve the paper. I liked the interactive forum too, I'd like for more publishers to consider this model.
Overall a good experience.
52.6 weeks
61.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
2019
Motivation:
The Manuscript is under review since one year. I sent further reviewer suggestions but the journal is not able to handle it.
4.3 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
7.4 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
4.7 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Editorial processing was extremely fast. It took 3 days from submission to the assignment of associate editor, and 30 days to get the 1st round of rereview. Reviews endorsed the publication of my manuscript 8 days after a moderate revision, and in the same day, the status changed from provisional acceptance to abstract online. The user experience of the submitting system and review forum was also excellent.
9.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
A specific problem in the Frontiers review system: At any time of the review process an (anonymous) reviewer has the right to withdraw from the process. If the reviewer does not withdraw, his or her name will be published if the manuscript gets published. The names of reviewers withdrawing will not be published.
In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
4.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.
3.6 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
3.3 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The reviews were objective and the review process and editorial handling was extremely fast.
11.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The interactive review system of Frontiers has benefits and drawbacks. It is nice to have the feeling to be more in discussion with the Reviewers as scientif colleagues than as judges. However, the interactive review system also seems to prolong the process. In addition, it is really annoying that each answer has to be placed in a separate box, meaning that you have to copy and paste the answers prepared in one file on your computer one after another.
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Positive experience. I have to specify that we were invited to submt the manuscript for a special issue.
7.1 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Very fast and rigorous review. The paper was much improved, especially in the theoretical part.
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Frontiers provided a very unfriendly and uninformative rejection notice: "The claims are vague. There is not sufficient content to merit publication in this journal." The rejection came in the week that Frontiers journals were in the news for being too lax and accepting.
11.6 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Took longer than expected to get first round of reviews. Good and thorough reviews. We were quick to revise and the reviewers approved our changes within a week or so. Editor took another 6 weeks to formally approve. Still, quicker than most linguistics and many psychology journals, and the paper is available directly.
4.9 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The rapid review system was excellent. The review process was efficient and rigorous and my paper was much improved as a result.