Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This was the fastest turnaround time I've had at any journal. The editor was very quick and took a genuine interest in the work.
Motivation:
The editor was an active participant in the review process, essentially functioning as a third reviewer. While this added a lot of work, it led to a final outcome of high quality.
Motivation:
Journal submission cycle is too long, reviewers don't review manuscripts and editors don't add reviewers
Motivation:
The journal was not able to find reviewers, and when he finally found a second one, this gave a very small and generic feedback. Basically, after 5 months waiting, only one reviewer reviewed my paper and solely decided for its rejection
Motivation:
If an appropriate reviewer cannot be found, editorial office could not solve the prolem.
Motivation:
Declining the manuscript after two rounds of review due to its length seems excessive.
Motivation:
Long process with a range in the quality of reviewers.
Motivation:
I have never gone through 4 revisions for an article, but am grateful that the editors did not give up on us despite a difficult reviewer who insisted on a misunderstanding.
Motivation:
Reasonable referee reports, which we believed we could have processed in the timespan of an R&R. Quick process, but note there is a submission fee involved (we paid 200 USD)
Motivation:
Quick turnaround from peer-review. However, the 'Acceptance to publication' time could be improved.
Motivation:
The manuscript remained 'with the editor' until January, when we wrote to find out what had happened. The editor then sent it to the reviewers. One of them revised the manuscript in half an hour without giving any reason for the rejection. The journal has no respect for the work of researchers. After 6 months, we expected at least some justifications that could improve our work.
Motivation:
Room one week for editorial check after which it was sent back with request to add page numbers to the check list. Took another week for editorial check, before it was assigned to editor for review but rejected in two days.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 121.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Submitting to this journal was just a waste of time. I've never experienced such a bad author experience at any journal before: Our submission was completely ignored. Also, contacting the journal staff after 3 months did not help to speed things up. After 4 months, still no academic editor was assigned to our submission. At the end, I was forced to withdraw my manuscript. The only positiv aspect: Journal staff confirmed my withdrawal request on the same business day.
Motivation:
The submission system of the journal is modern and comfortable. The consideration of the MS was rather fast. The first reviewer was positive on our MS, but had some serious remarks like making an experimental research for a theoretical paper.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
Motivation:
The editorial assistant changed some minor formatting without sending back to the author in order to speed up the process which is great. The rejection was quick and acknowledged that a review would have only delayed the decision
Motivation:
The only thing that bothered me was not having any feedback on what could be improved, just knowing that it was rejected.
Motivation:
Gostei da rapidez e objetividade dos comentários sobre pontos a melhorar
Motivation:
I had a the worst experience with an editor I have had so far (publishing scientific articles for 10+ years).
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, but editorial handling was slow
Motivation:
The decision read like this:
"Thank you for submitting your work to Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (ASFS). After my initial review, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not appropriate for the journal. The work seems well done, but we generally do not publish research focused on making efficient use of conventional inputs.
ASFS prioritizes interdisciplinary, participatory research exploring transitions toward sustainable, agroecologically based farming and food systems. We are particularly interested in work that focuses on agroecosystem redesign using ecological principles, as well as food system transformation based on agroecological production, equity, participation, democracy, and social justice."
Funny it took that long for the journal to reach a decision. I do not recommend this journal to anyone!
"Thank you for submitting your work to Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (ASFS). After my initial review, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not appropriate for the journal. The work seems well done, but we generally do not publish research focused on making efficient use of conventional inputs.
ASFS prioritizes interdisciplinary, participatory research exploring transitions toward sustainable, agroecologically based farming and food systems. We are particularly interested in work that focuses on agroecosystem redesign using ecological principles, as well as food system transformation based on agroecological production, equity, participation, democracy, and social justice."
Funny it took that long for the journal to reach a decision. I do not recommend this journal to anyone!