All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Fast processing for the desk reject alongside a suggestion to transfer to PNAS Nexus.

Motivation: Very fast turnaround, fair criticism.

Motivation: The journal took 15 months and went through 4 rounds of external review, only to ultimately reject the manuscript. It was an incredible waste of time. After three rounds of major revisions, all reviewers agreed the paper was ready for publication—except for one reviewer. He rejected it twice, and on the third round, claimed that his expectations had now increased, bringing up completely new concerns that had never been mentioned before. This is utterly unreasonable. I strongly discourage anyone from submitting to this journal. Four rounds of review is an unacceptable burden and a form of academic exhaustion.

Motivation: The editorial processing time of Journal of Youth and Adolescence is significantly longer than what is publicly claimed on the journal’s website. One of my manuscripts remained in the “Submitted” status for nearly a month before being desk rejected, with no sign of editorial handling during that time. A second submission also stayed in the “Submitted” status for a week, again with no update or editor assignment. This suggests that delays are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern.

If the journal is unable to meet its advertised turnaround times, it should consider revising those expectations to reflect reality. Transparency is essential, especially for early-career researchers who often rely on timely feedback and clear communication. While the journal has a strong reputation and publishes quality work, its editorial process could benefit from greater efficiency and honesty.

Recommendation: Proceed with caution if you are seeking a journal with fast and transparent editorial decisions.

Motivation: Publication type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Desk rejected in 4 hours - nonetheless, appreciated the fast turnaround time.

Motivation: I think as the reviewers, please abandon your academic superiority. You became a reviewer because you are capable, but this is not a reason to trample on others. If you don’t like it, think there is a problem, or it is incorrect, please tell me how to change it to meet your expectations. If the problem is very serious, please tell me that this is an unqualified manuscript and reject it. There is no need to trample on my personality and tell me that what I wrote is shit. I think respect is mutual and there is no need to attack me. Thank you for spending so much time trying to insult me, but I will not give up my academic path because of your denial.

Motivation: The editorial decision process dragged on for an extended period, which reflects poorly on their efficiency. They attributed the delay to a staff shortage, but this excuse hardly justifies the lack of timely communication or action. Such a prolonged wait, coupled with their apparent disorganization, comes across as unprofessional and undermines confidence in their editorial operations. It’s crucial to communicate this issue to researchers and authors intending to submit through the website, ensuring they are aware of potential delays. Transparency about this problem can help manage expectations, allowing submitters to plan accordingly and avoid frustration with an otherwise opaque and sluggish review process.

Motivation: This experience was very frustrating and kafkaesque. The journal simply did not come to a conclusion whether to send the manuscript to review or not.

Motivation: The submission process was smooth and the system efficient. However, the manuscript was desk-rejected without external review, and no specific reasons were provided beyond a general statement that it was “not the right fit” for the journal. The editor did offer a transfer link to other Elsevier journals.
We appreciated the quick turnaround—receiving a decision within two weeks allowed us to promptly consider other options.

Motivation: Six months for simply saying that the manuscript does not fit the journal's objective.

Motivation: The internal editorial review provided some interesting insights, a transfer to their open access journal was offered.

Motivation: The journal states that the average time to first decision is 10 days. However, it took 37 days for our manuscript to receive a desk rejection. The editor concluded that the paper was not suitable for publication, offering only vague and unsubstantiated criticisms of our methodology. The comments provided were brief and of mediocre quality, lacking the detail necessary for constructive feedback. Given the submission fee—a meaningful cost for authors from developing countries—and the extended wait time, the overall experience was deeply disappointing.

Motivation: The reviewer had deliberately hindered our publication process! With every new revision, he was pointing out issues he allegedly did not notice before; he argued that one of our figures was not HD enough and that he could not see the details in it. The editor rejected our paper based on appearance issues, without providing solid arguments regarding the scientific information in the paper. Not to mention that during our 6-month review process, a very similar paper was published in a different journal. We sent a formal letter drawing attention to this potential conflict of interest, and we were outright silenced and rejected.

Motivation: Experience extensive delays with this journal apparently because reviewers could not be identified. I do not recommend this journal for articles that need to be published within one year of submission.

Motivation: This is the worst peer review process I have ever seen in my entire academic career. After two months, I have received three reviews: one was the review of another paper (this is not a joke!), the second was generated by ChatGPT and only the third was pertinent. I have also been reviewer for this journal a couple of times, and sometimes they ask 10 reviewers for a single paper, I have never seen something like that! I highly recommend to never submit in this journal.

Motivation: The article was "With Editor" for almost 6 months, during which time we were assured repeatedly that it takes a few weeks for the editor to decide whether to send an article for review. Eventually, it was rejected without any proper review.

Motivation: For more than a year, we received no response from the journal, despite multiple follow-up attempts. Eventually, after a year, we were informed that the editor was stepping down and that our article had been assigned to a new editor. Then, within 10 days, we received an editorial rejection.

Motivation: Our experience submitting to this journal was extremely disappointing.
The review process suffered from massive delays with no communication or justification for the hold-up.

The first reviewer’s comments were completely irrelevant, highly likely intended for a different paper! While the second focused bizarrely on ethical considerations, despite our submission being purely technical.

It was painfully clear the reviewers had not read the manuscript!!! The vague, generic wording strongly suggested the use of Chatgpt rather than a proper review. This alarming lack of rigour seriously undermines the journal’s credibility.

Never submit to this journal or waste your time!

Motivation: It would have been better if reasons for immediate rejection were provided.

Motivation: Editorial office had apparently not yet sent the paper to reviewers and was just sitting on it.