All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: We got extensive reviews, but not entirely sure they were the best placed to judge the manuscript. Fair decision overall, given the reviews. Getting increasingly difficult to publish in JEMS, which is probably a good sign.

Motivation: The first round was a bit slow, but the editor communicated well which reviews they considered the most important ones.

Motivation: Swift desk reject with three sentences explaining why, very much appreciated!

Motivation: The initial feedback took a really long time time to recieve (6 months). Apart from this the review process was decent.

Motivation: Despite multiple follow-ups on my part, the manuscript sat on the administrator's desk for over four months. I understand that peer review and editorial evaluation can take time, but for it to simply sit there for months just to have an editor assigned is unacceptable.

Motivation: I am a researcher who has successfully published papers in this journal. This journal is clearly failing. The high open access publication fees amount to practically buying papers with money. A bigger problem is the caliber of the hired editors. With the recent hiring of fresh PhD or postdoc-level editors, quality control is completely nonexistent. They have not proven the career experience to distinguish between original and academically profound papers. They lack the discernment to identify academic source material amidst the massive volume of submissions. They are simply deceived by the reputation of their institutions and authors, as well as the fancy illustrations and applications encroached upon by AI. In conclusion, the quality of papers published in this journal these days is inconsistent and fails to provide any valuable lessons to fellow researchers. I believe the future of the commercial journals known as Nature portfoli, including this one, is bleak.

Motivation: The initial review was reasonably paced, with a major-revision decision about six weeks after submission. However, this first decision was issued on the basis of a single reviewer report, which we later learned did not meet the journal's own stated requirement of at least two reviewers.
We resubmitted our revised manuscript two days after the decision. What followed was a prolonged and unresolved delay. Over the next six months, the editorial office was unable to secure the required reviewers: more than ten reviewer invitations were sent, and none were accepted. During this period, the status updates we received were at times contradictory — one message indicated the manuscript was out for review with only a final report outstanding, while a later message stated that reviewers were still being sought.
To their credit, once the matter was escalated, the Lead Editor responded personally, acknowledged the irregularities, and was transparent about the difficulties. This was appreciated. Nonetheless, after more than six months without any realistic prospect of a decision, we chose to withdraw the manuscript.
Our experience suggests that authors should be aware of the possibility of significant delays in reviewer recruitment for this journal, and of limited proactive communication during those delays.

Motivation: While at their website they mention a time from submission to first decision of four days, after three months the only information on the submission website was still "editor assigned". When I inquired through the website about the status of the manuscript, no reaction was obtained. Finally, after sending a message directly to one of the three editors -- with a cc to the other two -- I obtained a reaction within an hour. The manuscript was rejected. So this editor needed three months for a desk rejection that he could give in one hour.

Motivation: The review time was reasonable—neither too fast nor too slow. Both reviewers provided comments that improved the manuscript and demonstrated a good understanding of the subject matter. In addition, prior to the peer review, the editor offered some minor comments that were also helpful. After acceptance, publication was also quick (just over a week).

Motivation: The assistant editor gave false information about two elements. First, that all members in the editorial board had the opportunity to review the paper and produce a decision. Second, the assistant editor formally communicated that he did not personally review the manuscript but only communicated the decisions made by others. As the rejection letter was issued in less than 24 hours from the time the manuscript was submitted it is self-obvious that the paper was not given any proper consideration. The assistant editor desk rejected the paper and the claimed for how it was sent out for review.