Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor claimed that the work was not novel, but did not provide a reference to explain why.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 72.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After submitted my manuscript to HSSC I receiving no updates. I followed up with the journal after 62 days to inquire about the status. In their response, they explained that they were facing significant difficulties securing a handling editor and had not yet found the right person to take on the paper. They noted that their editorial board consists of a voluntary external panel, meaning members have the autonomy to decline manuscript assignments. This made the situation clear: the bottleneck was not a lack of peer reviewers, but a more fundamental issue at an earlier stage. The process was entirely stalled at the internal editor-assignment level before peer review could even begin. Because the submission was stuck at this preliminary phase with no resolution in sight, I withdrew my manuscript and have since submitted it to another journal.
Motivation:
My experience with PLOS ONE revealed a deeply flawed, mechanical, and highly inefficient editorial process entirely unsuited for time-sensitive social science research. Despite my manuscript on political discourse analysis being marked as "Under Review" for over three months, the journal office ultimately admitted that not a single reviewer invitation had been accepted and that the Academic Editor now needed to be replaced entirely. Furthermore, when I proactively suggested independent, world-class experts to help resolve their bottleneck, my assistance was summarily dismissed with generic, automated templates, while the staff offered nothing but evasive, boilerplate responses until I was forced to issue a hard deadline. This total lack of transparency, monitoring, and genuine editorial oversight makes PLOS ONE a highly risky and unreliable venue for researchers managing strict academic promotion timelines.
Motivation:
Review times were unreasonably long
Motivation:
Excellent
Motivation:
The decision process was relatively fast and clear. It seems they sent it to the internal advisors before rejection.
During that time, the manuscript status changed several times, progressing through Submitted → Under Consideration → To Editor → To Advisor → From Advisor → From All Advisors, before ultimately being rejected.
During that time, the manuscript status changed several times, progressing through Submitted → Under Consideration → To Editor → To Advisor → From Advisor → From All Advisors, before ultimately being rejected.
Motivation:
The reviewers demonstrated no subject expertise and no familiarity with contemporary methods such as pre-registering experiments. Most comments were arbitrary formatting preferences or unrelated opinions.
Motivation:
One of the worst experiences ever. The editor-in-chief initially said that I was very interested in the article, but then required me to add passages against capitalism and the West, which were not at all the focus of my paper. He rejected my article without giving any reason.
Motivation:
One positive review and one very negative. Negative reviewer wanted a completely different set of experiments unrelated to the manuscript, listed numerous critiques that had already been in the manuscript but the reviewer overlooked, and criticized it for methodological/statistical reasons but themselves seemed to lack a knowledge of basic statistics. It is unfortunate that the editors were unable or unwilling to recognize this or carefully consider the manuscript themselves.
Motivation:
Although the eventual result was acceptance of my article, I feel the review process was unprofessional and unethical. After a very lengthy first-round review, after prodding the editorial contact, I eventually received a single review that was clearly AI-generated. (Not only did it feel AI-generated but an AI detector strongly confirmed my suspicions.) Although the points were quite sensible, I consider it unethical to give confidential manuscripts to generative AI, especially without declaring to the authors that this was done. This cannot genuinely be called "peer" review.
Motivation:
PLOS Medicine recruited excellent peer reviewers who understood our manuscript and gave constructive advice that improved its quality. The journal clearly prioritizes high-quality research, and brought in an additional expert to review the manuscript after the original peer reviewers. On the downside, this emphasis on quality creates a lot of work for the authors, including a fair amount of finicky formatting. This (plus the high-quality peer reviews) slowed down the publication process.
Motivation:
Fast and clear.
Manuscript under submission - 24th February 26
Manuscript received - 24th February 26
Editor assigned - 25th February 26
Manuscript under consideration - 25th February 26
Editor Decision Started - 5th March 26
Manuscript under consideration - 6th March 26
Decision sent to author - 6th March 26
Manuscript under submission - 24th February 26
Manuscript received - 24th February 26
Editor assigned - 25th February 26
Manuscript under consideration - 25th February 26
Editor Decision Started - 5th March 26
Manuscript under consideration - 6th March 26
Decision sent to author - 6th March 26
Motivation:
I DON'T recommend that any researchers submit their work to this journal. The editor agreed with the comments of a reviewer who was newly assigned in the 2nd review, concluding that "the cause-and-effect correlations were not fully supported." However, our paper was not intended to estimate causal effects, as clearly stated in the original manuscript. We also submitted an appeal in late April, but it was referred back to the same editor who rejected our manuscript. Then, we had to wait for over nine weeks to receive the final decision (rejection).
Motivation:
A statistical review was only introduced in the 4th review round. The editor agreed with the statistical reviewer's comments and rejected the manuscript around 9 months after our submission. I believe the 4th review round was too late to add a statistical review, and at the very last, the editor should have given us an opportunity to revise and respond to the reviewer's comments.
Motivation:
A negative reviewer's report looked biased, since he/she gave negative feedback to all questions of the review, including adequacy of the reference list, which was strange. This reviewer suggested that the presented graphics were "heavily processed" with no procedures described, which was wrong since just raw data were presented, and concluded that the manuscript does not contain transparent results. The other two reviewers gave constructive reports; however, the Editor's decision was not balanced.
Motivation:
Wiley SPE is a good venue for software engineering research. The review process was fair but a bit lengthy; even the second round will take almost 3 months.
Motivation:
The Empirical Software Engineering journal (EMSE) is well-reputed and maintained in the field of software engineering. Apart from a disappointment of the rejection decision, their feedback is gold standard for a researcher. They suggested dividing the manuscript into two papers, and following their feedback, I did that and addressed all concerns, and one part of it is not accepted for publication in the Journal of Systems and Software with minor revisions within 4 months. I personally suggest that the software engineering researchers, if you require a masterclass on software engineering research and if your manuscript clear their desks; EMSE will not disappoint you.
Motivation:
Personally, the prestige the journal holds is not reflected in their review process. Expect 1-2 reviewers; the comments were too general. Even a reviewer copy-pasted their comment two times just to increase the feedback, and the editor forwarded the comments as is without even checking the duplicates. For example, a reviewer's comments were like the following: Data Selection Bias (Major Issue): Adoption behavior is unexplained; the model only uses repository-level metrics. This is not the way to justify the rejection. I personally suggest not wasting time to submit to this journal. I agree that rejection is natural in academic publishing, but without justification, rejecting someone's idea is not what EAAI is known for.
Motivation:
I have a good experience with the Journal of Systems and Software. I will give 50% credit for this manuscript to the JSS reviewers because they rejected this manuscript two times, although I acknowledge that the standards of the previous drafts were too low for the JSS. But I have improved it a lot, and it got accepted with minor revisions within 4 months.
Motivation:
My domain is software engineering, and considering JSS as a good tier venue, I usually submit my manuscript there. The review was rigorous, fair, and timely. There were no personal adjectives mentioned in the review; total objective language was used, and I am extremely happy to see the standards of the Journal of Systems and Software.
Motivation:
There are actually 3 rounds review. The rirst, the editor asked to check if my paper's topic was related to ESWA. It turned out that several ESWA papers were related to mine, so I cited them. I thought that was normal. After that, I resubmitted it for review. The first review had major comments, and I needed to revise many things. The second round of reviews was minor, and after that, it was accepted.
Motivation:
I was happy with the peer review process, but I wish that the time from revise and resubmit to online first was faster.
Motivation:
The process was handled quickly overall. The reviews were very good, tough, and genuinely improved the paper, and the editor was responsive and helpful.
5.9 weeks
14.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
Motivation:
Good and my paper was improved by their comments
Motivation:
Besides the extraordinarily long review time, I strongly suspect that they could not find reviewers. An inquiry was made months after submission, and they replied that they had invited 50 total reviewers to that point. The generic statement in the decision letter was
"Unfortunately, we have determined that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication. We enclose detailed comments below.
AIP Advances covers applied physical science and requires manuscripts to contain original results and to be technically correct. Based on its scope, your manuscript may be more appropriate for another journal."
All this after suggestions from the editors of Applied Physics Letters and the Journal of Applied Physics to submit to them.
"Unfortunately, we have determined that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication. We enclose detailed comments below.
AIP Advances covers applied physical science and requires manuscripts to contain original results and to be technically correct. Based on its scope, your manuscript may be more appropriate for another journal."
All this after suggestions from the editors of Applied Physics Letters and the Journal of Applied Physics to submit to them.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Deeply disappointed by our experience with this journal. We had one reviewer who provided very brief feedback, all of which were easily addressed, but did not provide any clear reason for rejection. The second review was extremely limited and gave strong signs of being AI generated. It was very basic and included tips such as "please report all abbreviations in full throughout the whole manuscript" (why?) and "please add a section about strengths and limitations". (There was already a section titled strengths and limitations in the discussion section). The reviews gave no indication as to why the paper had been rejected.
As a researcher, I am well accustomed to paper rejections, but this was a very disappointing encounter. I doubt we will submit to them again.
As a researcher, I am well accustomed to paper rejections, but this was a very disappointing encounter. I doubt we will submit to them again.
Motivation:
This is the worst peer review experience I've had thus far. The first round of review was good and smooth and took less than half a year. We got comments from three reviewers, and all of them were positive about the manuscript and gave meaningful suggestions to strengthen the manuscript. We amended the manuscript and resubmitted it accordingly.
It was the second round of review that was extremely terrible and unpleasant. The review took almost one year and a half to complete. We sent several emails to the editorial office requesting information, but did not get any response at all. Eventually, the final decision was a rejection, which we think is extremely unfair:
1) we got comments from only one reviewer, who, apparently, was a new reviewer and not involved in the first round of review - his/her comments were substantially different from those raised by the initial reviewers. While we understand new reviewers could be invited, we expected them to focus on assessing our revisions and whether they sufficiently and appropriately address the initial reviewers' concerns. In fact, it appears that this new reviewer did not read the initial reviewers' comments and our response at all. The decision to reject our revised manuscript based solely on this new reviewer's comments and without considering the initial reviewers' comments and our response is outrightly unfair.
2) the review lacks transparency to such a degree that we can't even clearly know whether the initial reviewers withdrew from the review or whether new reviewers were invited.
3) the comments from the only reviewer are actually not at all that negative. They can be addressed with some more explanations in the manuscript, since he/she is mainly asking for further clarifications/justifications of various constructs. However, we were not given any opportunity to revise the manuscript. This is extremely unfair given that these comments were not raised in the first round of review.
4) no further explanation from the editor is given as to why the decision is a rejection. Actually, we think the reason is that the second round of review took too long and the editor might not want to deal with the manuscript anymore, and so he/she wanted to conclude the process at this point. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of our revised manuscript. I don't think the editor handled our revised manuscript professionally.
Anyways, our impression is that the revised manuscript was handled in a disappointingly unprofessional manner. I would not suggest anyone to publish in this journal.
It was the second round of review that was extremely terrible and unpleasant. The review took almost one year and a half to complete. We sent several emails to the editorial office requesting information, but did not get any response at all. Eventually, the final decision was a rejection, which we think is extremely unfair:
1) we got comments from only one reviewer, who, apparently, was a new reviewer and not involved in the first round of review - his/her comments were substantially different from those raised by the initial reviewers. While we understand new reviewers could be invited, we expected them to focus on assessing our revisions and whether they sufficiently and appropriately address the initial reviewers' concerns. In fact, it appears that this new reviewer did not read the initial reviewers' comments and our response at all. The decision to reject our revised manuscript based solely on this new reviewer's comments and without considering the initial reviewers' comments and our response is outrightly unfair.
2) the review lacks transparency to such a degree that we can't even clearly know whether the initial reviewers withdrew from the review or whether new reviewers were invited.
3) the comments from the only reviewer are actually not at all that negative. They can be addressed with some more explanations in the manuscript, since he/she is mainly asking for further clarifications/justifications of various constructs. However, we were not given any opportunity to revise the manuscript. This is extremely unfair given that these comments were not raised in the first round of review.
4) no further explanation from the editor is given as to why the decision is a rejection. Actually, we think the reason is that the second round of review took too long and the editor might not want to deal with the manuscript anymore, and so he/she wanted to conclude the process at this point. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of our revised manuscript. I don't think the editor handled our revised manuscript professionally.
Anyways, our impression is that the revised manuscript was handled in a disappointingly unprofessional manner. I would not suggest anyone to publish in this journal.
Motivation:
We submitted our manuscript to the Cognitive Computation journal for its Special Issue on Big Data at the beginning of December 2024. The submission initially progressed through editorial screening, and the online tracking system indicated that the paper was "with the editor." After a month without any further updates, we contacted the journal. At that point, we were informed that the manuscript had passed the initial editorial review and was accepted for external peer review.
Unfortunately, the status of the manuscript remained unchanged for the next five months. During this time, we contacted both the journal and the Special Issue Editor-in-Chief multiple times. While we were reassured that the handling editor was actively searching for reviewers, there was no apparent progress. To assist the process, we provided a comprehensive list of over 20 qualified and field-appropriate reviewer suggestions. However, the journal declined to consider any of them without explaining.
Ultimately, after nearly half a year of inaction, we received a desk rejection, without any external peer review or reviewer feedback. This outcome, following months of editorial delay and lack of transparency, was both disappointing and unprofessional. In our experience, this represents a breakdown in the expected standards of scholarly communication and peer review. We would caution others considering submission to this Special Issue, or the journal more broadly, to be mindful of the substantial editorial inefficiencies we encountered.
Unfortunately, the status of the manuscript remained unchanged for the next five months. During this time, we contacted both the journal and the Special Issue Editor-in-Chief multiple times. While we were reassured that the handling editor was actively searching for reviewers, there was no apparent progress. To assist the process, we provided a comprehensive list of over 20 qualified and field-appropriate reviewer suggestions. However, the journal declined to consider any of them without explaining.
Ultimately, after nearly half a year of inaction, we received a desk rejection, without any external peer review or reviewer feedback. This outcome, following months of editorial delay and lack of transparency, was both disappointing and unprofessional. In our experience, this represents a breakdown in the expected standards of scholarly communication and peer review. We would caution others considering submission to this Special Issue, or the journal more broadly, to be mindful of the substantial editorial inefficiencies we encountered.
Motivation:
After three rounds of revisions, the paper was finally accepted. The entire process—from submission to publication—took 1 year and 4 months. Although the reviewing process is voluntary, we do pay for the publication. The prolonged waiting time was excessive and concerning. The reviews offered little constructive feedback, and it appeared that our manuscript was neglected for several months.