Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It was absolutely shameful how long this entire ordeal took. Even repeated emails to the editorial staff did not seem to expedite the process. The outcome was reviewer comments that did not move beyond general editor-type observations.
Motivation:
They simply stated "I regret to inform you that your manuscript has been denied publication in Alternatives."
They even did not state any information about scope fitness or journal quality issues. This is unfair to other authors.
They even did not state any information about scope fitness or journal quality issues. This is unfair to other authors.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were constructive, and the manuscript improved. Compared to articles from a few years ago, the peer review seems to have become stricter in recent years. However, the formatting editor, whose only role was to check for typos and the like, was absolutely terrible. Not only did she overlook many errors, but she also commented on the content of the paper despite having no scientific understanding of mitochondrial DNA, and many of her comments were completely off the mark. Because she was the first in the review process, we couldn't even raise objections to the reviewers or editors, and had to make revisions based on her unfounded demands. Naturally, these revisions were pointed out as being incorrect during the review and had to be reverted. Upon submitting the revised manuscript, she made the exact same requests again. Even after sending a protest email, she completely ignored it, causing significant delays in the review process. This time, we spent more time dealing with her baseless remarks than on the actual review. Ultimately, things moved smoothly after explaining the situation to the chief editor. It's completely unacceptable for a formatting editor to override comments from reviewers or academic editors. Furthermore, the lack of information sharing between formatting editors, academic editors, and reviewers is also problematic.
Motivation:
The sole reviewer constantly appealed that I was only quoting hearsay in the finding section, although I had quoted statistics and parliamentarian voices for triangulation purposes.
My manuscript involved discussing the situation of three countries, but he was only attacking the finding sub-section related to a specific country. In any other parts of the manuscript, he made no comments. I am wondering if his nationality or background would make him reject any critics or unfavorable comments about the government of the country which my manuscript highlight some critics to them. Potentially, there are in fact conflict of interest.
I complained to the EIC. This is entirely unfair. But they are unwilling to handle the situation.
My manuscript involved discussing the situation of three countries, but he was only attacking the finding sub-section related to a specific country. In any other parts of the manuscript, he made no comments. I am wondering if his nationality or background would make him reject any critics or unfavorable comments about the government of the country which my manuscript highlight some critics to them. Potentially, there are in fact conflict of interest.
I complained to the EIC. This is entirely unfair. But they are unwilling to handle the situation.
Motivation:
Ridiculously long second round of review (esp. for a Review paper). We were close to pulling the paper and submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
This is our first and will be the only submission to the JMIR journal. The editor's conduct appears to be irresponsible and disrespectful. It seems that the handling editor has not completed her Ph.D. training yet. The reason for rejection was simply stated as general points without any comments from the reviewers.
Initially, this journal required us to pay the fast-handling fee, but it took two months without finding any reviewers. Furthermore, the quality of one of the reviewers is remarkably poor, and they do not seem to be a specialist in our field. They provided numerous unhelpful comments and insisted on inserting irrelevant references to their published papers, which goes against academic norms. This is the first time I've encountered such demands from reviewers.
Additionally, this journal is highly likely to request you to transfer your valuable manuscript to journals without Impact Factors (IF). I strongly advise other colleagues not to take the risk of submitting papers to this journal.
Initially, this journal required us to pay the fast-handling fee, but it took two months without finding any reviewers. Furthermore, the quality of one of the reviewers is remarkably poor, and they do not seem to be a specialist in our field. They provided numerous unhelpful comments and insisted on inserting irrelevant references to their published papers, which goes against academic norms. This is the first time I've encountered such demands from reviewers.
Additionally, this journal is highly likely to request you to transfer your valuable manuscript to journals without Impact Factors (IF). I strongly advise other colleagues not to take the risk of submitting papers to this journal.
Motivation:
The decision letter said: "... We currently only accept about 10 % of submissions, and a quick assessment of your submission yielded the expert opinion that it is not suitable for JEMS."
Motivation:
expert opinion was adopted
Motivation:
I would have appreciated some more information about the required quality standards that were not met, so that I could use this detailed feedback to improve the paper.
Motivation:
There was no feedback on which points could be improved.
Motivation:
Hypocrite, waste my time and work
Motivation:
Requested for transfer to communication physics
Motivation:
MTE is currently receiving more submissions than it can publish. Only the papers that have a high potential to attract broad audience and to inspire new studies will be selected for peer review. Unfortunately, this paper has not passed our initial screening. We appreciate your interests in MTE and wish to receive high-quality papers from you in future.
Motivation:
Worst review process I have experienced so far. After an R&R and two rounds of reviews, the editor suddenly decided that the paper allegedly would not be sufficiently anonymized and that the entire process had to be restarted. In the new review process, the paper was rejected although 2 out of 3 reviewers recommended an R&R. In their decision, the editor overlooked Reviewer 3 (who recommended an R&R) and only noticed after I asked about it, but didn't change the decision. In total, I now had 8 reviewers, out of which 7 recommended an R&R (or even acceptance), and on this basis, the paper was rejected after 9 months.
Motivation:
One reviewer report; no other reviewers found by the journal. The one reviewer's comments were five sentences. The first three sentences indicate that the reviewer did not read the manuscript. The methods that are "not described" are in fact described, some of them in the supplementary material. The last sentence then states that this information that was "not described" should be in the main manuscript instead of the supplementary material. Based on this, the editor rejected the paper.
Motivation:
A well-executed paper review benefits authors, even if the reviewed paper is ultimately rejected. Authors can use the feedback to improve their work and submit it to other journals. In my experience, a single reviewer mostly focused on grammatical and compositional flaws rather than methodological or theoretical problems in the article.
Motivation:
The review was quite generic and consisted of only three sentences. Yet, it took more than two months to secure.
Motivation:
After addressing all reviewer comments, the editor requested changes that required re-experimentation. The manuscript failed to address one of the editor's comments, leading the editor to recommend rejection that took almost an year.
Motivation:
Rapid ediorial rejection
Motivation:
The reviewer and editor in chief tried there best to improve the paper. However, I found the review process really slow. We had to send emails to get R&R and acceptance decisions, considering that my co-author know well the editor in chief. Some young authors would never try to send mails and abandon the project or research...
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief refused to consider our manuscript with the wording “Journal does not accept such review papers” without any justification
Motivation:
AVOID - editor refused to review article, no reason given.
Motivation:
We were offered a transfer to another journal. I'm glad that the desk rejection was quick - within 2 days.
There is a reference limit of 30 for (most?) Lancet journals, which I personally find very questionable.
There is a reference limit of 30 for (most?) Lancet journals, which I personally find very questionable.
Motivation:
1) The journal cosiders "Unsolicited Review articles [...] for peer review at the Editor’s discretion".
2) The editor did send our article to peer review --> 3 reports --> 2nd round (2 reports, both recommending "accept")
3) The editor notices that "Although your manuscript is well written, we are not able to consider unsolicited review articles in this journal."
2) The editor did send our article to peer review --> 3 reports --> 2nd round (2 reports, both recommending "accept")
3) The editor notices that "Although your manuscript is well written, we are not able to consider unsolicited review articles in this journal."
Motivation:
It took the journal almost 8 weeks to make the decision of desk rejection.
Motivation:
The desk reject took quite long. They did not offer any internal Lancet transfers, but referred me to several other Elsevier journals. These had impact factors ranging from approx 1.5 - 20, which seems a rather broad range.
Motivation:
One month for a desk rejection ("out of scope") is too long.
Motivation:
More than 5 months for a desk rejection is unacceptable and far blow any standards.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.
Motivation:
After submission, my article was held for nearly three months before even being assigned to an associate editor. It was then held for another two months before being sent out for review. The reviewers' comments, once I finally received them, were reasonably insightful, but the processing time was simply far too long for me to consider submitting to this journal again. I would not recommend submitting to M&S, unless you are prepared for publication to take well over a year.
31.6 weeks
37.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers definitively were experts on the field. Their report were very deep and helpful. My overall experience was extremely positive.
Motivation:
Processing time was alright.
However, the 2 reviews were less the 300 words combined and pointed to shortcomings that were clearly addressed in the manuscript. This suggests that neither of the reviewers properly read the paper. It is questionable for a journal to send out such reviews.
However, the 2 reviews were less the 300 words combined and pointed to shortcomings that were clearly addressed in the manuscript. This suggests that neither of the reviewers properly read the paper. It is questionable for a journal to send out such reviews.
Motivation:
The journal failed to find reviewers over 34 weeks. However, the submission site said that it was undergoing peer review, throughout this time.