Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We have to draw back our submission after waiting for 5 months
Motivation:
The process for rejection was slower than anticipated. Editor suggested transfer to Nature Communications, which we did.
Motivation:
The editors rejected my manuscript eventually only for the reason they could not find enough reviewer after major revision and the previous reviewer gave very positive feedback after major redivision. And it took me over one year for waiting the final rejection.
Motivation:
It was fast, and the reviews were essential
Motivation:
During my submission process, I found the Journal Finder tool useful in identifying this journal as a potential fit for my manuscript. However, my paper was desk-rejected despite its topic being closely related to previously published studies in the journal. While I respect the editorial decision, I would have appreciated clearer guidance on the reasons for desk rejection, which could help authors assess fit more accurately. Overall, the submission platform and communication were professional and efficient.
Motivation:
Too long for the first decision!!! A terrible experience
Motivation:
Desk rejection after internal editorial review. Apparently more than 50% of submissions are desk rejected. Would have been nice to have a little hint what differentiates papers being sent out.
Motivation:
Manuscript was reviewed by two people. One gave very minor revisions, all text based, the other wanted a thesis of new experiments done. Even though this was accapted with minor revisions, the editor wrote back two days later saying they changed their mind. Easily the most unprofessional journal out there.
Motivation:
Simple desk rejection for lack of space.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 90.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
We submitted our paper to the journal on 2 Dec 2025. It then remained stuck in "With Editor" status for nearly three months until we withdrew it. Despite multiple enquiries, we received no meaningful information, no updates, and no resolution whatsoever. The lack of response was truly astounding.
Motivation:
The editor did not engage with the manuscript. The sole reason given — 'Bayesian reasoning in ethics is not a new idea' — misidentifies the paper's thesis, which concerns the structural isomorphism of moral and empirical reasoning, not a novel application of Bayesian ethics. A one-sentence desk rejection that misreads the central argument is not editorial judgment.
Motivation:
The editorial decision was communicated very briefly, stating that “there is no significant scientific advancement in this study to merit publication in Agricultural Research.” While I respect the editorial process, I believe that more detailed and constructive feedback would be beneficial, especially for early-career researchers, as brief or dismissive responses may discourage motivation. The submission platform itself was easy to use.
Motivation:
The editorial decision was made without sending the manuscript for peer review. While the communication from the journal was polite, the lack of review process meant there was no substantive feedback on the manuscript. This approach may be discouraging, particularly for early-career researchers, and limits the opportunity to improve the work based on expert input.
Motivation:
No information, but the desk reject was at least fast.
Motivation:
Plain desk reject. Let's move on...
Motivation:
Very gruff, with zero input on the why.
Motivation:
Desk reject time was more than twice what was advertised.
Motivation:
The review process appeared subjective and, in my view, did not reflect the level of professionalism typically expected in academic peer review. I would expect greater transparency, professionalism, and consistency in the editorial process.
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 18 September 2025. During the entire period after submission, the status remained “Article Received by Journal.” There were no updates, no communication from the editorial office, and no indication that the manuscript had progressed to editorial screening or peer review.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
Motivation:
The editorial decision at Work and Occupations is a classic case of methodological gatekeeping. For a journal in the social sciences, their refusal to value qualitative depth and theoretical saturation over raw numbers is frustrating. They treat "generalizability" as a purely quantitative metric, completely ignoring the power of thick description and localized conceptual unpacking in the Global South. This journal is interested in the subject of work, but clearly lacks the sociological imagination to respect the depth of qualitative research.
Motivation:
Apparently we didn't make the "work that makes a really substantial and new contribution to the discipline, and speaks to a general political studies audience" criterion. Would have appreciated this evaluation a bit more quickly.
Motivation:
Very (!) swift response. Within 15 Minutes desk rejected. No other reason stated than: "no fit".
Motivation:
They need to prioritize (we all understand that), but no reason was given why the manuscript wasn't considered priority.
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The process was very opaque. Two weeks after submitting we got notice that it had passed initial screening and that it was waiting for reviewer selection. Then, a week before receiving the rejection letter, we got an email indicating that "all required reviews" had been received. Then we got the decision letter saying that the editor did not send the paper to reviewers and decided to reject the paper.
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief argued that the work does not present a sufficient enough advance. The associate editor felt that "More work is needed to substantiate the conclusions in your manuscript," without elaborating.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 111.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Not a good experience with the Journal. We paid $200 for submission and for over 4 months of silence, and there was no way to check the status. After several emails, we received an ambiguous email with no clear indication of when the article would reach a first decision of either desk rejection or be sent out for review.
I do not have a good view of the journal
I do not have a good view of the journal
Motivation:
My experience with this journal was frustrating because the editorial decision was not communicated clearly. The system indicated that my manuscript should be transferred to another journal, but it was not obvious whether this meant rejection due to scientific quality, lack of fit with the journal’s scope, or another editorial reason.
For authors, understanding the basis of a decision is important. Without clear explanation or constructive feedback, it is difficult to know how to improve the manuscript or decide the best next step. The transfer option may be helpful in some cases, but it should be accompanied by transparent editorial comments so authors can understand why the original submission was not accepted. A clearer and more informative communication process would greatly improve the author experience.
For authors, understanding the basis of a decision is important. Without clear explanation or constructive feedback, it is difficult to know how to improve the manuscript or decide the best next step. The transfer option may be helpful in some cases, but it should be accompanied by transparent editorial comments so authors can understand why the original submission was not accepted. A clearer and more informative communication process would greatly improve the author experience.
Motivation:
Very fast
Motivation:
The form above does not consider the case where, after sending out to reviewers, no decision is made at all. After almost a year under review (50 weeks), no reviews and no decision were actually received. Despite my repeated requests and the repeated attempts of the Springer editorial assistant (who did their job excellently I must say), the handling editor failed to ensure that enough reviews were received in a reasonable amount of time. As a result, I had no choice but to withdraw the paper.
Based on my experience (which may have been isolated), I would urge colleagues not to submit to this journal, as in the 50 weeks I spent waiting for a decision that never came, I could have had 2 or more rounds of reviews elsewhere.
Based on my experience (which may have been isolated), I would urge colleagues not to submit to this journal, as in the 50 weeks I spent waiting for a decision that never came, I could have had 2 or more rounds of reviews elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very annoying to wait a full month for a desk reject
Motivation:
They spent over 25 days in "submitted to journal" status and rejected. They could have been faster.
Motivation:
Straight desk reject. I'd have been nice to tell us a bit more than "did not score quite highly enough on our main criteria".
Motivation:
Desk rejected after a 30-day wait. The email was not saying anything specific to the submitted manuscript "[...] we do not think that the technical advances presented will have a sufficiently substantial and immediate practical relevance to our readership [...]".
Motivation:
"[...] not convinced that these results represent a sufficiently large advance [...]"
Motivation:
While the initial round of reviews provided constructive feedback, the overall management of the manuscript was extremely inefficient. The process lasted 18 months in total, with more than 7 months spent waiting for a decision on the revised version. Ultimately, the editorial office admitted they were unable to secure any reviewers for the second round and that the handling editor would not take a responsibility for a decision based on the existing revisions. Despite the polite communication from the Journal Manager, the lack of proactive editorial handling forced me to withdraw the manuscript to avoid further indefinite delays. I advise colleagues to be cautious regarding the current administrative backlog of this journal.
Motivation:
The editor took more than four months to issue a desk rejection, which we consider discourteous; moreover, the decision was justified solely on the grounds that the topic was deemed “too specialized.”
Motivation:
I didn't exactly agree it wasn't a right fit, but I appreciate the fast response.