Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Publication type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
Submission portal was updated 2 weeks after the date of initial submission to indicate that it was sent for external review. I received the reviewer comments 5 weeks after the date of initial submission. Reviewer comments were fair and applicable to the manuscript. The first revision was accepted less than a week after its submission. The overall publication process was efficient.
Submission portal was updated 2 weeks after the date of initial submission to indicate that it was sent for external review. I received the reviewer comments 5 weeks after the date of initial submission. Reviewer comments were fair and applicable to the manuscript. The first revision was accepted less than a week after its submission. The overall publication process was efficient.
Motivation:
The editor sent out the revised manuscript to a reviewer after a minor revision in the second round.
Motivation:
Paper was accepted within a day or two after being assigned to the Editor. The editor requested minor changes, we promptly submitted them, and our submission was accepted the next day. I wish all submissions went that way!
Motivation:
The peer-review process was of high quality. The reviewers’ reports and suggestions were highly relevant and contributed significantly to improving the manuscript. The editor was approachable and responded to emails in a timely manner. The only drawback was the overall duration of the process, as it took over a year from submission to publication.
Motivation:
The manuscript was quickly sent out for review. A rejection is always bitter after waiting 2 months for a decision, but the whole process went well.
Motivation:
The overall process was smooth, although the initial review took a bit longer than expected due to the winter holidays. However, it was ultimately a great experience publishing in this journal.
Motivation:
After an initial invitation to revise and resubmit, new objections were raised. One reviewer did have interesting suggestions on further areas of improvement. However, it almost seems that the reviewer was implicitly demanding that nonchemical measurements be undertaken despite the manuscript describing a chemically based technique.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 3.5 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Slow editorial but the reviewers were good.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for review after 2 weeks. Only one reviewer agreed to review, but did not send in their review. 2 new reviewers were invited after 4 months. Both reviewers used a very short time on the review (1 day and 12 days), and both reviews were very short, superficial and seemed rushed.
Motivation:
Extremely well-managed journal, with efficient communication and regular updates at every stage of the process. Fast turnaround times and exceptionally responsive editors, so rare to find these days. Highly recommended. Sadly, my manuscript was not accepted after the first round of reviews.
Motivation:
Two out of three reviewers were positive, but one reviewer was negative, which significantly influenced the editor's final decision to reject the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were quite helpful in resubmitting the manuscript to another journal (which was later accepted).
Motivation:
It took too long for the review.
Motivation:
Overly Punitive and Poorly Justified Review
While the reviewer raises some valid concerns, their approach seems excessively punitive, dismissing the paper without providing clear directions for improvement. The critique of the fractal interpretation of the data could have been better substantiated, and the rejection of the methodology should have been accompanied by specific recommendations.
If originality was the main objection, the reviewer could have suggested ways to make the study more relevant instead of outright rejecting it. As it stands, this review appears more like a subjective dismissal of the paper rather than a constructive evaluation that could lead to an improved version.
While the reviewer raises some valid concerns, their approach seems excessively punitive, dismissing the paper without providing clear directions for improvement. The critique of the fractal interpretation of the data could have been better substantiated, and the rejection of the methodology should have been accompanied by specific recommendations.
If originality was the main objection, the reviewer could have suggested ways to make the study more relevant instead of outright rejecting it. As it stands, this review appears more like a subjective dismissal of the paper rather than a constructive evaluation that could lead to an improved version.
Motivation:
The reviewer rejected my article with an argument I found intriguing: they acknowledged the topic's relevance due to an upcoming European space mission but deemed the manuscript unsuitable for peer review. This raises an important question—if the manuscript truly lacked the necessary quality, wouldn’t the editor, an experienced professional astronomer, have identified this at an earlier stage?
The review focused primarily on the conclusions section and did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The concerns raised could have been addressed with constructive feedback. Based on my prior publications in journals with similar impact factors, I found this review process unusually slow and lacking in depth. However, after resubmitting the paper to another journal from the same publisher, it was accepted within two to three months, reinforcing the value of the work.
The review focused primarily on the conclusions section and did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The concerns raised could have been addressed with constructive feedback. Based on my prior publications in journals with similar impact factors, I found this review process unusually slow and lacking in depth. However, after resubmitting the paper to another journal from the same publisher, it was accepted within two to three months, reinforcing the value of the work.
Motivation:
Overall, the handling of the manuscript was very careful and prompt. The review comments from three reviewers were 5 pages long in PDF format, and I believe they were the most detailed and accurate reviews I have ever received. Unfortunately, the manuscript was rejected, but it provided a good opportunity for me to recognize the issues in my research. Below are the main status changes and their respective dates.
08-Jan-2025 Received
10-Jan-2025 To Advisor
22-Jan-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
04-Feb-2025 Under Evaluation (Reviewer Invited)
05-Feb-2025 To Review (To Review)
28-Feb-2025 To Review (From Review)
10-Mar-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Reviewers)
11-Mar-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
08-Jan-2025 Received
10-Jan-2025 To Advisor
22-Jan-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
04-Feb-2025 Under Evaluation (Reviewer Invited)
05-Feb-2025 To Review (To Review)
28-Feb-2025 To Review (From Review)
10-Mar-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Reviewers)
11-Mar-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
Motivation:
Both reviewers provided feedback that was not particularly constructive. One reviewer suggested citing several papers from the same author, which did not contribute new information and appeared to be self-citations. The other reviewer made suggestions that were not in alignment with the current literature and established knowledge in the field, leading us to reject most of their recommendations. On a positive note, the review process was completed very quickly, though this speed came at the cost of receiving poor-quality reviews.
Motivation:
Editor did a great work in handling this reviewing proccess. He read the comments, incorporated himself suggestions. Very fast and constructive replys.
Motivation:
It was my first time submitting a paper to a journal and I could not have been better.
Motivation:
Impressed by how fast they got pretty high quality reviews. Also in the past had a paper desk rejected but got a helpful suggestion for an alternative journal to try.
Motivation:
A long wait for the first reviewer comments. The editor explained that one reviewer had accepted to review, but did not provide any comments, so the editor acted as the second reviewer. The comments were helpful and overall quite satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
The initial review took quite a long time. One of the reviewers had no comments, while the other reviewer had good and insightful comments. The manuscript was quickly accepted after resubmission.
Motivation:
References weren't all able to be verified from the original entry, a
Motivation:
My manuscript received careful attention from the editors and reviewers, who provided numerous highly valuable suggestions that significantly improved its quality. Their efficiency was also commendable, making them a worthy consideration for many researchers.
Motivation:
This journal's review process is both rapid and thorough. The reviewers offer valuable insights that enhance the clarity and informativeness of the manuscript. The submission experience is smooth and enjoyable, making this journal highly recommended for digital-related manuscripts.