Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
the editor rejected after major, effortful revisions without sending it to the reviewers again. The motivation to reject was based on weaknesses of the paper that were already present during the first submission
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 176.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 5 months of waiting to receive any review we withdrew our manuscript and submitted elsewhere. The editor never responded to any queries about causes for the delay. Very unprofessional behavior.
Motivation:
First submission (≈13 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. They gave some revision comments, fair enough. We revised carefully and resubmitted.
Second submission (≈5.5 weeks to decision) Same two reviewers, plus one new reviewer who immediately accepted without comments. The other two? They acknowledged our revisions positively but then just repeated some of the same comments from the first round , even though those things had already been fixed. One example: “I recommend revising sections where absolute expressions, such as ‘first of its kind,’ are used.” , there were no such expressions in that version. Another reviewer also praised our revisions but then repeated old points. What was really suspicious was the wording, almost like the reviewer gave our paper and their comments to someone else (maybe even AI), who then replied back saying things like:
"The manuscript addresses most of the key areas highlighted in your review, incorporating significant improvements and revisions. … They propose future studies to scale up the sample and explore the impacts of longer-term interventions, addressing your concern about generalizability.”
That use of “your” made it sound like the comments weren’t even written directly for us, but were instead written about the review process by some third party.
Third submission (≈2 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. One accepted. The other (the same suspicious one from before) once again repeated earlier issues , though very fewer this time.
Fourth submission (≈21 weeks to decision) New editor. Four brand new reviewers. Suddenly everything changed , and then: straight rejection, no resubmission.
Total timeline from first submission to final rejection = about 54 weeks (1 year and 2 weeks).
Round 2 and 3 had same editor. Before the fourth submission, I even emailed the editor about the repeated reviewer comments, no reply. Instead, they just dumped it on completely new reviewers which leaded to rejection.
Second submission (≈5.5 weeks to decision) Same two reviewers, plus one new reviewer who immediately accepted without comments. The other two? They acknowledged our revisions positively but then just repeated some of the same comments from the first round , even though those things had already been fixed. One example: “I recommend revising sections where absolute expressions, such as ‘first of its kind,’ are used.” , there were no such expressions in that version. Another reviewer also praised our revisions but then repeated old points. What was really suspicious was the wording, almost like the reviewer gave our paper and their comments to someone else (maybe even AI), who then replied back saying things like:
"The manuscript addresses most of the key areas highlighted in your review, incorporating significant improvements and revisions. … They propose future studies to scale up the sample and explore the impacts of longer-term interventions, addressing your concern about generalizability.”
That use of “your” made it sound like the comments weren’t even written directly for us, but were instead written about the review process by some third party.
Third submission (≈2 weeks to decision) Two reviewers. One accepted. The other (the same suspicious one from before) once again repeated earlier issues , though very fewer this time.
Fourth submission (≈21 weeks to decision) New editor. Four brand new reviewers. Suddenly everything changed , and then: straight rejection, no resubmission.
Total timeline from first submission to final rejection = about 54 weeks (1 year and 2 weeks).
Round 2 and 3 had same editor. Before the fourth submission, I even emailed the editor about the repeated reviewer comments, no reply. Instead, they just dumped it on completely new reviewers which leaded to rejection.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 201.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After more than five months since the manuscript was submitted, with no peer review and still at the editorial desk, I decided to withdraw my manuscript.
Motivation:
The submission system showed that the submission passed tech check and an editor has been assigned before 10 Oct 2024. However, there was no further progress until May 2025. After contacting the editorial office, I was astonished to learn that in fact, no editor has been assigned until May 2025. Spending over half a year without even an initial assessment (either a desk rejection or an editor assignment) was truly disappointing.
Motivation:
After over eight months, we received a referee report that was four sentences long. The first two sentences summarized the paper, and the last two stated that the paper was "certainly interesting" but that the results were "not at the level of Advances in Mathematics." In other words, after such a long period, the editor had only managed to obtain a quick opinion about the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Our manuscript, which focused on battery materials, was assigned to an editor whose primary expertise is in organic chemistry. As a result, the editorial assessment did not reflect the scientific context of the work, and our request for reassignment to a more appropriate editor was not addressed by the chief editor.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 250.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After submission, the journal sent no notification of progress. The on-line submission site stated "in progress." Three months in, I inquired on the status of the manuscript and was told they had received reviewer feedback and were waiting on another reviewer. Five months in, I inquired again - same response. Seven months in, I proposed additional reviewer names. Entering the ninth month, I withdrew the manuscript. The editorial staff obviously knew what they were doing. I had to conclude probable malice.
Motivation:
A templated desk-rejection letter. It's half the length of what's shown on the official website, but still a bit too long for a rejection.
n/a
n/a
58 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"...manuscripts of this type are not of high interest to the broad T-UFFC readership who are more interested in new ultrasound technologies that have demonstrated real-world applicability and advantages over other existing solutions,"
This determination took more than 8 weeks?
This determination took more than 8 weeks?
Motivation:
I feel like an out of scope rejection could have been processed quicker that 6 weeks.
Motivation:
Very long review process. Comments mentioned by reviewers could have been revised in the manuscript. Decision to reject not well explained.
Motivation:
This journal has one of the most disgusting review processes I have found in my experience. Not all the reviews are shared with the authors (only some of them are shared). Even after emailing multiple times regarding sensitive issues, there was no response from the editorial committee. The decision process takes way too long, with questionable remarks. Why is a decision being taken based on the comments of 1 reviewer, not all 4 (even after receiving the reviews).
In my case, one of the reviewers clearly broke the ethical boundary when he asked to cite his own papers. When refused, he outright rejected the paper without any proper justification. When I informed the editor regarding this multiple times, there was no response. but they rejected the paper solely based on this particular reviewer.
After almost a year of review, the authors atleast have the rights to see all the reviews and a transparent decision process. I am completely disgusted by this journal and I am never going to submit my paper ever again here - suggest others not to submit as well.
In my case, one of the reviewers clearly broke the ethical boundary when he asked to cite his own papers. When refused, he outright rejected the paper without any proper justification. When I informed the editor regarding this multiple times, there was no response. but they rejected the paper solely based on this particular reviewer.
After almost a year of review, the authors atleast have the rights to see all the reviews and a transparent decision process. I am completely disgusted by this journal and I am never going to submit my paper ever again here - suggest others not to submit as well.
Motivation:
I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal. After about five days of waiting, the editor sent it out for review to two referees.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
Motivation:
We have reviewed the Manuscript and provided answers to the observations, especially at the Discussion level.
Motivation:
The review process was very long, and most reviewers provided only general comments that did not significantly improve the manuscript. Additionally, the frequent change of reviewers made it difficult to progress, leaving authors stuck in a cycle of repeated revisions.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.
Motivation:
Some of the comments added to the verbosity of the paper, without improving its content significantly.
Motivation:
Took too much time for a standard desk rejection without providing specific reasoning.
Motivation:
After 1 month with no news, and after talking with peers and reading the reports on sites like this one, I decided to ask Plos One for news and specifically to ask how many reviewers had accepted to review. To my surprise, I learnt that zero reviewers had been secured, which in 15 years of being active has never happened, including twice at Plos One.
The editor was kept anonymous and the date of the last attempt to secure reviewers was unknown. So I decided that I was better off submitting elsewhere. I suspect that potential reviewers (including myself) do not see the interest of reviewing for this journal anymore, but that academic editors still accept the role but not the workload anymore.
Here is the semi-automatic response I got (same one as reported by others on this site)
"Thank you for following up. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out. "
The editor was kept anonymous and the date of the last attempt to secure reviewers was unknown. So I decided that I was better off submitting elsewhere. I suspect that potential reviewers (including myself) do not see the interest of reviewing for this journal anymore, but that academic editors still accept the role but not the workload anymore.
Here is the semi-automatic response I got (same one as reported by others on this site)
"Thank you for following up. The Academic Editor assigned to your manuscript is unfortunately having trouble securing reviewers. This can sometimes happen if, for instance, the reviewers with the appropriate expertise are temporarily unavailable. However, we have reached out to the Academic Editor to help the peer review process proceed smoothly.
Please be assured that we are monitoring the progress of your manuscript and will be in touch again when the Editor has rendered a decision.
If there's anything else I can do to help in the meantime, don't hesitate to reach out. "
Motivation:
MY BEST BIRTHDAY GIFT :)
Strict reviewers and friendly editors. Although the review process was slow, the quality of the manuscript improved significantly. The journal places great emphasis on the innovativeness of studies and imposes no strict word limits.
Strict reviewers and friendly editors. Although the review process was slow, the quality of the manuscript improved significantly. The journal places great emphasis on the innovativeness of studies and imposes no strict word limits.
Motivation:
The review process was longer than expected.
However, I received constructive feedbacks and comments from the reviewers. All these helped me improve the language, flow, and rigor of the manuscript extensively.
However, I received constructive feedbacks and comments from the reviewers. All these helped me improve the language, flow, and rigor of the manuscript extensively.
Motivation:
A very disappointing experience with HELIYON. I've lost 15 months with 5 rounds of the reviewing process, which accounted for 7 different reviewers who argued for early minor revisions, which were later converted to major revisions. The editor never responds directly to our complaints, and finally, the editor claimed that the quality of the figure images needed to be improved substantially to be considered further. The Elsevier support team didn´t help much with our complaints, which were only passed on to the editorial board, who seemed uninterested
Motivation:
The paper was rejected following the opinion of just one reviewer, as no reviewer 2 provided no report. The issue of rejection was endogeneity. That was quite fair, but the reviewer comments were definitely not constructive.
Motivation:
Not interesting enough after all. The review reports are extensive and thoughtful.
Motivation:
This journal always returns its peer review results within two months, and the comments are positive, so I think it's a very good journal.