Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Overall, the handling of the manuscript was prompt.
11-June-2025 Received
12-June-2025 To Advisor
23-June-2025 From All Advisors
23-June-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
27-June-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
11-June-2025 Received
12-June-2025 To Advisor
23-June-2025 From All Advisors
23-June-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
27-June-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
Motivation:
It is ACS Chemical Biology's policy to return a proportion of manuscripts without sending them to external referees. Decisions of this kind are made by members of the Board of Editors (BOE), often on the advice of regular advisers, when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
Motivation:
The journal appears overly fixated on certain formalistic requirements. For instance, during the review process, they demanded raw data and insisted that IRB approval dates must precede data collection. While rigor is certainly commendable, excessive formalism becomes counterproductive—especially when the editorial team disregards researchers' explanations, wasting everyone's time. In fact, our study did not involve any physical or psychological impact on participants; it was merely a social survey on certain attitudes, which arguably did not require IRB approval at all. Ironically, our commitment to rigor—providing the IRB approval number—ended up becoming the very reason for rejection.
Motivation:
We obtain two reviews of poor quality. The first one was decent, but prepared by someone with little knowledge on the paper's topic or methods used. It recommended revisions. The other one completely lacked substance, was jus a set of generic negative statements with no connection to the paper. This one recommended rejection. The editor rejected the paper based on the second, poor quality review, instead of seeking additional more substantial reviews.
Motivation:
My article was first reviewed by the editor and after making some changes, it was sent to three reviewers. The reviewing process was very professional and impartial, and after three revisions, the article was accepted. Although the submission process took almost a year to accept, the article became much better than the first day, considering the reviewers' recommendations.
Motivation:
The editorial office operates quite professionally, with standard procedures in both processing speed and peer review. The reviewers' expertise varies—some are not very familiar with statistical methods but are willing to discuss with us, while one even had a hidden agenda, demanding we cite a bunch of his irrelevant papers. However, the editors are quite responsible, possibly recognizing some reviewers' lack of professionalism, as they added more reviewers in the second round. Overall, the journal's editorial team is diligent and conscientious, accepting a broad range of topics without overly emphasizing depth but prioritizing research rigor, making it a good choice for novice submissions.
Motivation:
The entire process was fast, clear, and very professional. They have the best editorial team in absolute terms in the field.
Motivation:
Two extensive reviews and a brief justification for the decision by the editor. Obviously we'd have liked a different outcome, but novelty and lack of fit are difficult to argue...
Motivation:
Very quick process. Also generally good comments that subtantiate a rejection but help improve the paper further.
Motivation:
The editor did not update me on the status of the manuscript, and only after three months decided to reject it because no reviewers accepted to review it
Motivation:
IEEE TBME is highly selective
Motivation:
Disappointing experience trying to publish in this journal. Just two months after submission, the tracking system showed that one reviewer had submitted their report, but the second reviewer, who allegedly agreed to review, never submitted their report for over seven months. Nine months after submitting my paper, I was never contacted with any updates. They simply told me that it depends on the reviewer's availability. As a result, I decided to withdraw my manuscript.
Motivation:
immediate rejection reasoning was nonsensical
8.4 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The Journal is a high-quality one, regarding to multidisciplinary submissions. I got 2 reviewers in short time with good feedback to improve quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
This was supposed to be a simple 2,000 word case report. It did not require 6 reviewers and comments - the most ridiculous practice I have ever seen for a journal with a relatively low impact factor. Only two reviewers needed max. One of the 6 reviewers used AI to complete the review, as there were comments that didn't apply to the manuscript. I will not be submitting to this journal again, way too much work the type of journal and impact factor.
Motivation:
The journal offered a transparent and efficient process from submission through revision and proofreading. It was a positive experience to submit our manuscript here. I would recommend this journal to peers conducting related research as a valuable platform for disseminating their work.
Motivation:
The first peer-review was quite long, but if that is on the journal, the reviewers or an issue getting reviewers, I don't know. After that, I think the reviewers did an excellent job providing high-quality reviews that improved the article.
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The journal is respected, and reviewers are professional.
Motivation:
Appropiate handling time and valuable reviewer's comments.
Motivation:
One reviewer considered our approach not novel enough and that largely was it.
Motivation:
my article was sent to 7 reviewers and 5 of them asked for rejection while two asked for revisions, i think sending one article to 7 reviewers is abit too much and i have not heard of this before, but it is okay because i am planning to follow the reviewers suggestion and after i am done i plan to submit the article again to this journal.
the only thing that is not good is the first decision time which took about a month, and also when the review was finished it took about two weeks almost for the editors to give me the final decision , so i think that time can be saved by making it abit faster.
the only thing that is not good is the first decision time which took about a month, and also when the review was finished it took about two weeks almost for the editors to give me the final decision , so i think that time can be saved by making it abit faster.
Motivation:
The handling time is reasonable. The reviewer's comment was very generic.
Motivation:
Detailed and informative reviews.
Motivation:
Good journal (ESCI, Scopus) for timely decisions.
Motivation:
Excellent choice of reviewers who understood the science underpinning our research and provided actionable feedback.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments are quite constructive.
Motivation:
I like this journal because of the efficient peer review process and very constructive suggestions from reviewers.
Motivation:
Overall very positive experience. The first round of review was somehow slow, in part, because our topic was a bit exotic. Editor and production team very responsive
Motivation:
It took about a month for the journal to send it for peer review. On the positive side, they send you a personalised link where you can see how many reviewers accepted and how many have already sent their decision.
Regarding the quality of the comments, they were generally good and well-founded. However, I am somewhat concerned that one of the reviewers suggested adding some references that many had in common with the same author, which indicates certain bad practices. Although, as the manuscript was rejected, I cannot say this with certainty.
Regarding the quality of the comments, they were generally good and well-founded. However, I am somewhat concerned that one of the reviewers suggested adding some references that many had in common with the same author, which indicates certain bad practices. Although, as the manuscript was rejected, I cannot say this with certainty.
Motivation:
The process was quick, and we received two constructive reviewer reports. Overall, we were pleased with the feedback, which included only minor comments to address.