Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
150 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
The Chief Editor appears to have a different timeline for manuscript processing compared to the associate editors at JRS. Based on my experience as a reviewer for the journal, the associate editors typically process peer reviews and recommendations within one to two months. However, during my latest submission, despite the associate editor's recommendation to transfer my manuscript to another journal within a few weeks, it took the chief editor more than four months to issue a desk rejection. Throughout this period, I reached out to Elsevier multiple times seeking updates on the status of my manuscript. After a wait of five months, my manuscript was rejected without specific feedback or suggestions for improvement. I'm sorry I can't find another way to describe this other than unprofessional. Researchers might want to be aware of these timelines before considering the journal for their submissions.
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
One month after submission the journal status was still "Submitted to Journal", so I asked about the progress on the submission. After further two weeks I received the rejection.
n/a
n/a
86 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Before submitting our manuscript to JRS, we checked SciRev. When reading the abundance of reviews evidencing the editorial slowness, we were reluctant to send our manuscript to JRS. However, since I had a previous—similarly slow but eventually successful—experience with JRS, we decided to give it a try. After all, we thought that our manuscript provided a very novel and fresh view (don't we all?).
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
After submission, just like the experience of other people on this forum, our manuscript was with the editor for 2.5 months before we decided to send the editor a diplomatic email, basically expressing our understanding that COVID-19 must have been slowing down editorial and reviewer work and even enthusiastically offering our help in reviewing manuscripts. It took the editor another 10 days to look at our manuscript, only to reject it with the typical template response "After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it." Seriously? Do editors need 12.3 weeks to arrive at this conclusion? This is not acceptable and this not respectful towards the hard work of young researchers who are trying to advance their career. I understand editors' decisions to desk-reject papers. After all, this is a subjective decision and this editor may have no affiliation for our particular research discovery, but I think editors should be able to reach this decision faster, such that we can explore other journals without wasting valuable time by waiting.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 155.0 days
Drawn back
2020
Motivation:
I submitted the ms and the editor in chief started searching for reviewers a month later. After one more month I asked about the status of the ms through the journal editorial manager system with no response. I decided to send an email to the editor's personal account (with copy to the editorial board) telling them that I would withdraw the ms if I had no responses. Only then I received a response: the editor just sent a few reminders to the invited reviewers. After another month I asked him again, he only sent another reminder. It seems that the Editor is only cappable of sending some mails. I finally withdrew the ms, five months wasted.
8.6 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 348.0 days
Drawn back
2018
Motivation:
The article was with the editor for over 12 months and nothing happened. It was not even sent to reviewers. I decided to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere.
20.1 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Although the editor sent the paper for review promptly, and I got notification the reviews were completed a month after submission, I only got a response from the editor when I sent a prompt to him 2 mths later. In other words the editor sat on the reviews for 2 mths with no action.
n/a
n/a
121 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
I wonder how an editor would retain a paper for over four months and yet would still feel it's not worth sending to external reviewers. The most annoying part of the whole issue was that having been on the editor's table for well over 4 months, there wasn't any value addition to the paper in the end; the editor did not give any cogent reasons as to why the paper had to be returned! This was my experience.
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
They mentioned the focus of their journal and where potentially my manuscript can be sent.