Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rapid editorial process to get desk rejection within a week. Editor recommended transfer to another high impact Nature journal that was a better fit, and we took that transfer option. Good, efficient process.
Motivation:
Publication type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
Desk rejected in 4 hours - nonetheless, appreciated the fast turnaround time.
Desk rejected in 4 hours - nonetheless, appreciated the fast turnaround time.
Motivation:
A month is a long time for a desk rejection.
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:
This was a very disappointing experience. We submitted our paper in August only to recieve a note from the editor that they could not find reviewers for us 6 months later. In this situation, the editorial team at least could have bothered to provide us with their own feedback and comments on the manuscript.
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:
It took 1 month to be desk rejected! which is fine but then dont write in the journal that on average "0 days avg. from submission to first decision" because is not true! put 20 days min! :0
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 first decision by the editor, as well as the review process, was very fast. The timing of the journal is very good. However, the review was quite poor and I consider that they have hardly improved the article.
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.
We appreciated the quick turnaround—receiving a decision within two weeks allowed us to promptly consider other options.
Motivation:
It was a software paper, and they told us that the analyzed data were not showing any new insight. Despite being indeed a "software" paper indeed, and not a "results" article.......
They are super super slow, it took around 6 weeks for immediate rejection. We have also recent experience with another article and it took forever as well! (and it was accepted)
They are super super slow, it took around 6 weeks for immediate rejection. We have also recent experience with another article and it took forever as well! (and it was accepted)
Motivation:
Six months for simply saying that the manuscript does not fit the journal's objective.
Motivation:
Poor editoral work, he/she let through offensive comments from a reviewer. Moreover, editor was unable to make any own decisions - just forwarding emails. Editor did not read cover letters. Definitely last time I will submit anything to this journal.
Motivation:
The internal editorial review provided some interesting insights, a transfer to their open access journal was offered.
Motivation:
The entire process for my manuscript took a total of 11 months. The initial assignment of an editor took approximately 2.5 months, and the manuscript was then sent out for review within a day. However, it took about 5.5 months to find reviewers. The revision decision, along with reviewer comments, was shared after 1.5 months. The revised manuscript was re-evaluated within 15 days, and the editor provided the final rejection decision after an additional 5 weeks.
Additionally, I found the tone of one of the reviewers to be somewhat discouraging and less constructive than expected. For instance, their final comment on the revised manuscript was:
"The authors rejected all my substantive comments. I have no additional comments on the few modifications they made in their responses."
Additionally, I found the tone of one of the reviewers to be somewhat discouraging and less constructive than expected. For instance, their final comment on the revised manuscript was:
"The authors rejected all my substantive comments. I have no additional comments on the few modifications they made in their responses."
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:
A fast editorial decision, a transfer to other journals of the Nature portfolio was offered.
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:
16-04-2025 submitted
16-04-2025 Assigned Editor
16-04-2025 Under Evaluation
17-04-2025 To Advisor
18-04-2025 Under Evaluation - From All Advisors
22-04-2025 Rejected - Transfer offered
16-04-2025 Assigned Editor
16-04-2025 Under Evaluation
17-04-2025 To Advisor
18-04-2025 Under Evaluation - From All Advisors
22-04-2025 Rejected - Transfer offered
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:
I would not recommend submitting articles to this journal. They only had one reviewer who missed the point of the whole paper. It was also obvious he/she did not bother reviewing the whole article and knew nothing about the topic. The editor's handing of the manuscript was also very poor as only 1 review was obtained and decision was based on that one poor review with limited feedback. However, In all fairness a neurology journal is not a place to submit pain/headache articles.
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:
My paper is accepted but i never recommend others to submit to this journal. Very very bad experience, i received the final decisioin after 26 months.
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!
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:
No response about a first decision after half a year, interaction with editorial board friendly, apologetic, yet not result- or solution-driven. Seemed to have resulted in a complete halt of progress on their side, thus we ended the endeavour from our side. Would not consider for submission again.
Motivation:
It would have been better if reasons for immediate rejection were provided.
Motivation:
Extremely bad editorial handling of the paper. It should not take 8 months to desk-reject a paper. Totally unacceptable.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 176.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Editorial office had apparently not yet sent the paper to reviewers and was just sitting on it.
Motivation:
One month for a desk rejection with a boiler-plate justification is a bit long.
Motivation:
Over 2 months for a desk rejection, this seems slow.
Motivation:
Desk rejection, but done very quickly, so absolutely no time lost in the process.
Motivation:
One of the referee reports was 3 lines long. The other review was much more detailed and engaging.
Motivation:
This was slow for a desk rejection.
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very slow desk rejection
Motivation:
The first reviewer was not very respectful and gave practically no feedback, he just rejected it.
The second reviewer was a little more coherent in giving his reasons, but even so we would have appreciated to know more in detail the points of improvement of the article.
The second reviewer was a little more coherent in giving his reasons, but even so we would have appreciated to know more in detail the points of improvement of the article.
Motivation:
They provided a reason why the paper was not a good fit for the journal, and provided a pointer in which direction to try.