Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
34.7 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
2
Accepted
Motivation: The review and publication process was excessively lengthy, it took 20 months from initial submission to publication. Throughout the process, I had to inquire several times about the status of the manuscript. Issues included trouble securing reviewers, lack of timely information on the process, and important emails (including reviewer comments) repeatedly "getting lost" because they were sent to the wrong address (although I explicitly pointed out the problem to the editor). The editor's replies were always friendly and professional, but the whole communication process leaves room for improvement. Also in the current state, the online submission system is a shell with little to no benefits to authors - there is a lack of transparency, communication and reviews are not posted within the system, and changes to contact information (such as update of the email adress) take no effect.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 98.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: The whole handling procedure was very unprofessional. When the journal did not provide reports after 3 months we inquired and did not manage to get any concrete information about the status of the manuscript. The journal seemingly went for a delay strategy. Direct contact with the handling editor was not possible. Since we tried this journal for the first time, we lost trust and decided to end the process.
158.1 weeks
253.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Accepted
Motivation: If you are considering submitting your research to Soft Computing, think twice. Our experience with this journal was marked by extreme delays, poor communication, and a complete lack of accountability. After submitting our manuscript, we waited four months to receive a major revision decision. This was reasonable, and we promptly revised and resubmitted our paper, expecting a timely response. However, what followed was months of complete silence. Despite multiple follow-ups, the only response we received from the editorial office was a generic message stating, "Your manuscript is under review."

After waiting one full year, we escalated the issue to Springer, only to discover that one of the reviewers had never responded, and the journal had simply left our paper in limbo without reassigning it to another reviewer. It was only after over 20 follow-ups and another year of waiting that the manuscript was finally accepted. Even then, it took four more months for the paper to appear online. In total, the process from initial submission to final publication took an astonishing three years. By the time our work was published, several similar studies had already appeared, severely diminishing our research’s novelty and impact.

Soft Computing Journal's editorial process is unprofessional, inefficient, and unresponsive. If you care about the relevance and timeliness of your research, avoid this journal at all costs. There are many reputable alternatives that respect authors’ time and contributions—this is not one of them.
n/a
n/a
103 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Unfortunately, my experience with this journal was far from satisfactory. It took more than three months for the editor to simply state that they were not interested in the topic of my paper! This level of delay and lack of transparency in the review process reflects a disorganized and inefficient system, which is unacceptable for a scientific or professional journal.

Journals should act more responsibly and provide timely responses instead of wasting months of researchers' time. If you are looking for a professional and responsive journal, I strongly recommend staying away from this one.
66.6 weeks
149.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: Editorial process extremely long. Rejection provided after asking for input regarding the re-evaluation of the re-submitted article after almost 2 years on being in re-submission.
6.1 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick process. Review quality was overall good, sometimes missing the limitations of the word limit at this journal. Editor engaged with the paper and highlighted most important changes to be made.
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process and the assistance with blinding were both handled well. The reviewers were knowledgeable and gave constructive criticism.
19.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewers gave very brief comments saying the findings were incremental and editor rejected our submission. No further comments by editor were provided.
8.7 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Editorial process was prompt but after requesting four potential reviewers be excluded from the Reviewer pool, one of them was still selected as a reviewer. The inclusion of this Reviewer led to a laborious back-and-forth that did not improve the quality of the manuscript. The other two reviewers made many comments that improved the manuscript. The paper was accepted but I don't plan to submit to NPP while the current Editors remain.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.9 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.7 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Great - fastest desk rejects I know. Sad they don't publish much policy.
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Accepted
Motivation: Manuscript took a while to get accepted and took forever to find reviewers. In the end, they found reviewers which gave decent feedback and improved the quality of the manuscript. While the review process itself isn't bad, the journals management was horrendous. For example, they charged the manuscript to my department (which they paid) and confirmed the receipt to me. 2 months later, they sent an invoice saying the payment has not been made. When I told them that and forwarded the details to them, they claimed that they needed more details (like what other details do you need?). Worst of all, they were very lacklustre to even try and locate the payment that has already been made and confirmed by them. When I told them of whom the payment was made from, they simply said "Can you provide details like credit card to confirm?", saying that "We get a lot of manuscripts from [my institution] and therefore it will be difficult for us to locate the payment". You mean to tell me you don't keep track of who and payments and to what manuscript the payment was made to? You simply took the money? They expected me to go and get my department's credit card and provide them details to them. Anyone with a brain cell knows that no department will do that. If not I will just save the details into my account and charge them for anything and everything.

To make matters worse, I left the institute when this happened, so this further complicated matters, of which scientific reports did not seem to bother to care.
n/a
n/a
85 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor is vers responsive and respond to emails fast with clear instruction.
3.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Quick and good editorial responses.
7.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
10.0 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
11.1 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 57.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
4.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The peer review process was smooth and quick
5.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The peer review process has heavily improved my MS, and I am pretty thankful for such a rigorous process and to the reviewers.
2.4 weeks
2.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
12.7 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The review process took a long time considering the short and fairly easy going reviews I received. It also took longer than I'd have expected to get an editor's decision (especially since I submitted to a special issue). Overall the process was ok and the interactive review system made it fairly quick to make and get revisions approved. Very high APC, as we're used to with Frontiers.
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
Motivation: Rejected by the editor despite the reviewers recommending minor revisions. Both reviews very short and superficial - about 5 lines of text in total - but still took over 2 months. Resubmitted to a much higher IF journal which provided serious reviews and accepted the paper.
8.4 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Extremely detailed and mostly helpful review reports. The second review round took a bit longer than it really needed to but the editor's decision came very quickly after that which helped keep things moving.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Desk rejects are always painful, but this one was reasonably fast and we had a useful pointer from the editor.
Immediately accepted after 23.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
0
Rejected
Motivation: This journal's peer review system seems to have been problematic since the current Chief Editor took over.
13.6 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
25.7 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
2
Rejected
Motivation: The level of reviews is approximately equal to the level of the best representatives of regional university bulletins. The requirement to cite your work at the end looks especially charming. We were prepared for the fact that a good journal might have high requirements, so we did not rule out the possibility of a motivated reject. But we certainly could not imagine such a level of reviews. If six months were the price for reasonable comments, this could at least be understood. 2, because the site is convenient and the editor is polite.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)