Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The reviewers failed to recognize that we submitted a communication and expressed dissatisfaction with the limited inclusion of just two figures. Their feedback included a mix of inaccuracies and irrelevant suggestions, such as altering bond lengths and the molecule's name. In the end, only a few questions from one of the reviewers proved genuinely constructive. The second reviewer provided an extensive 28 comments, with roughly 20 of them being redundant and unhelpful.
3.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Quick turnaround, all-around positive.
7.1 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The reason given by the editor was lack of significant novelty in terms of Lab-on-a-chip technology. He recommended to go for an application-oriented journal.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
2.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
We assumed we could resubmit after addressing their points, which we did the next year.
This time, the same reviewer admits that we improved our work and that he is 'satisfied' but then suggested another journal, RSC Advances, altogether.
Again, we received high scores for significance and quality.
In the end, we regretted sending our work to this journal or our choice of reviewers.
I think this journal is used to publishing a certain type of work within the area of Lab-on-Chip and is not general enough to accommodate all Lab-on-Chip works, and this part is not clear to us.
This time, the same reviewer admits that we improved our work and that he is 'satisfied' but then suggested another journal, RSC Advances, altogether.
Again, we received high scores for significance and quality.
In the end, we regretted sending our work to this journal or our choice of reviewers.
I think this journal is used to publishing a certain type of work within the area of Lab-on-Chip and is not general enough to accommodate all Lab-on-Chip works, and this part is not clear to us.
19.0 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The first round of the peer-review took very long. While the editor was fair with his decision following the first-peer review, an additional review process after the revision would have been much better instead of immediate rejection by the editor, given that a large number of experiments were performed during the revision and that the, by the editor demanded, additional experiment was not fitting the scope of the manuscript and normally counts as an own publication similarly large journals.
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The first round of revision was totally reasonable. Although I responded to almost all the comments from the first round of reviewing, the second revision (probably a different person) gave the criticism, which led to the rejection. Although I did not think the criticism from the second revision was reasonable, I did not have a chance to rebut it.
2.3 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The review process was extremely fast. The reviews were very positive and asked only for very minor changes to the manuscript.