Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Please review the paper normally.
Motivation:
Fast turnaround time
n/a
n/a
163 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The manuscript was desk-rejected after more than five months, which we consider an unnecessarily lengthy period for an editorial decision.
Motivation:
No review occurred. Algorithmic screening rejected the manuscript since "insufficient" citation of the home journal was in the submitted manuscript.
Motivation:
The journal no longer accepts review papers, e.g., literature reviews, systematic reviews, bibliometric reviews, etc.
Motivation:
The journal is very good! I liked the process, it was fast. The first round of reviews was HELL ON EARTH but helped to improve my paper a LOT! I am very thankful to the journal´s team. I definitly advise to try to publish here! :)
Motivation:
The reviewer’s comments were very constructive, and I believe the paper has improved significantly. On the other hand, perhaps due to the difficulty of finding reviewers, there was only one reviewer. It is somewhat disappointing that I couldn't get more feedback to improve the paper further or gain insights for future plans.
Motivation:
Desk reject after two months, immediately after we e-mailed the relevant editor directly (after receiving no reply on a message sent within the submission communication system)
Motivation:
The editorial process was very long. After two months, a decision was made without sending the manuscript to reviewers. Finally we got a rejection without saying that it is rejected, as we intended to publish a perspective, while the editor thought they would like to consider it as a 'Progress'. Since the guidelines for a Progress were significantly more restrictive than a Perspective, the editors basically asked us to take our manuscript fully apart. We finally withdrew the manuscript. For this kind of decision, 2 months of waiting is way to long.
Motivation:
The rejection letter says that the comments will be at the end of the email, but there aren't any, so I don't know the real reason for the rejection or even how to try to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editor/editorial office alleged that we had copied others' published work, but provided no supporting evidence. The manuscript was rejected within 20 hours after submission. Beware of this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were easy to address but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.
Motivation:
I am very satisfied with how the journal handled the review process. The handling editor was very active in seeking out reviewers. The comments made by the two reviewers were constructive, and lead to improvements to the submitted software and the corresponding documentation. I should also add that I am a fan of the open peer review model employed by this journal.
Motivation:
Overall, I am very satisfied with the review process. The handling editor appeared to be very active in searching for reviewers, which lead to quite a fast review. The reviewer comments received in the first round were thorough, and the suggestions made were quite reasonable, leading to a stronger manuscript as a result.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were selected, and both provided highly biased comments. One severely misread the manuscript, making flawed arguments forcing the citation of specific papers and the use of SD instead of SEM. The critical issue was that the handling editor rejected the paper without intervening to address these excessively biased reviewer claims. However, my request for re-review following major revisions was accepted; yet, after a month-long, thorough editorial review, the paper was ultimately rejected. While encountering "hit-or-miss" reviewers is an unavoidable reality with any journal, the peer-review process here is well-managed, and it appears to be an excellent journal.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Many reviewers were available, with eight reviewers initially agreeing to review and seven ultimately submitting their reports. The handling editor was very prompt throughout the process. Although the review process was lengthy, the detailed reviews improved my manuscript. It was clear that the reviewers took considerable time and effort to evaluate the manuscript.
Motivation:
The process of locating suitable peer reviewers was fraught with complications, which substantially extended the recorded duration between the manuscript’s initial submission and its final acceptance. Nevertheless, the editorial team did not resort to unethical practices such as rejecting the manuscript with an invitation to resubmit or issuing an outright rejection merely to compress this time frame, a demonstration of commendable patience on their part. One of the reviewers proved exceedingly difficult to contact, yet the editors did not accommodate this impasse by prolonging the review process unnecessarily; instead, they proceeded to render an acceptance decision on the basis of the already received revision comments, a resolution that came as a notable surprise to the corresponding author who had endured an extended waiting period.
Motivation:
- excellent choice of reviewers
- helpful comments from reviewers
- editorial handling was transparent
- technical checks largely transparent
- some steps took a bit long, but compared to other journals still relatively quick
- helpful comments from reviewers
- editorial handling was transparent
- technical checks largely transparent
- some steps took a bit long, but compared to other journals still relatively quick
Motivation:
+ desk rejection was quick
Motivation:
- great choice of reviewers
- excellent handling by editorial staff
- reviews improved manuscript for sure
- excellent handling by editorial staff
- reviews improved manuscript for sure
Motivation:
General process was ok. Could have been a bit faster. One of the reviewer reports was clearly AI-generated.
Motivation:
Standard pre-formulated desk rejection without any reasoning whatsoever.
Motivation:
The editor provided prompt responses to the authors’ questions, while the reviewer offered constructive feedback that improved the manuscript’s clarity and readability.
Motivation:
Fast, reasonable reviews from expertised reviewers from same research area. One reviewer pointed out one suggestion that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript
Motivation:
The reviewer provided valuable comments that improved the clarity and flow of the manuscript. It has been a wonderful experience, and I am grateful for the opportunity to publish our work in this prestigious journal.
Motivation:
My manuscript started out as a cell multi-journal submission request, where I included iScience as an option. iScience was the one that chose to examine my manuscript. I had to resubmit the paper through the iScience portal, which as a bit annoying since I assumed the multi-journal submission would automatically transfer it. The comments by the reviewers were mostly positive. I think one of them didn't read the paper fully, as I was asked to do what was already presented in a figure. But overall, my experience with iScience was good.