Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Too long to get just a desk-rejection
Motivation:
One reviewer provided highly unprofessional comments, demonstrating a lack of expertise in the field. For example, they questioned how a 405 nm laser could cause less photobleaching than a 532 nm laser based solely on photon energy and suggested using a different laser if photobleaching was observed, ignoring well-established photophysics and common sense in fluorescence imaging. He repeatedly claimed the work was not impressive without providing any specific justification.
The third reviewer repeatedly claimed our experiments were "one-time experiments" without noticing that they were actually repeated, with supporting results clearly provided in the Supplementary Information.
During the resubmission process, we spent over a month working with the editor just to make minor formatting changes, such as removing the word "new" from the abstract. Even the smallest revisions took weeks to receive a response.
The entire handling process was a nightmare. The handling editor was also changed in the third round of review. The entire review process took nine months, only to be rejected based on subjective significance concerns and unprofessional reviewer comments, which is extremely disappointing. We also had to spend over a month addressing unnecessary formatting issues, causing unnecessary delays. Their poor editorial management significantly impacted the timely publication of our results. I would not recommend submitting valuable work to this journal.
The third reviewer repeatedly claimed our experiments were "one-time experiments" without noticing that they were actually repeated, with supporting results clearly provided in the Supplementary Information.
During the resubmission process, we spent over a month working with the editor just to make minor formatting changes, such as removing the word "new" from the abstract. Even the smallest revisions took weeks to receive a response.
The entire handling process was a nightmare. The handling editor was also changed in the third round of review. The entire review process took nine months, only to be rejected based on subjective significance concerns and unprofessional reviewer comments, which is extremely disappointing. We also had to spend over a month addressing unnecessary formatting issues, causing unnecessary delays. Their poor editorial management significantly impacted the timely publication of our results. I would not recommend submitting valuable work to this journal.
Motivation:
After 6 months waiting for a response from the reviewers we were surprised to see that the editor had sent our, strictly quantitative analysis, to a reviewer admitting he is a qualititative researcher (had no idea for the 80% of the paper in essence) and one (hopefully) quantitative whom was asking why we did not use fixed effects in a logit model and he was “concerned “ for the use of the sampling weights. Meanwhile they were provided with a full separate appendix providing the different sampling weights according to different boost-samples in different years while we are also re-scaling them to all account the same… Have not faced such a inadequate review process ever before… disappointing
Motivation:
I appreciate the efficiency of the editorial team. The desk rejection decision was communicated within 5 days, allowing me to quickly explore alternative options. While rejection is always disappointing, a swift response helps researchers manage their work more effectively. Thank you for maintaining a transparent and timely process.
Motivation:
We submitted our paper on 8 March 2024. After a short time, it appeared as "Under Review," and after 4 months, we sent an email about the process. The editor sent us an email saying that our paper is still under review. On 27 August 2024 ( 5 months after the first submission), we had a major revision from 2 reviewers. We did all the revisions in two months and sent to the journal on 9 September 2024. and we were waiting for an acceptance. After 2 months from revisions, we had a final decline. Although one of the reviewers had accepted, the editor rejected our paper according to ANOTHER (totally different) reviewer's (not the one who asked for revision in the first place) opinion from scratch after we made all the major revisions. We wasted our ten months for a decline with revisions. It was a terrible editorial process. Don't recommend anyone.
Even though we sent an e-mail explaining this situation, their editorial office also did not pay attention. They have forwarded our email to the Chief Editor for comment, that's all.
Even though we sent an e-mail explaining this situation, their editorial office also did not pay attention. They have forwarded our email to the Chief Editor for comment, that's all.
Motivation:
The communication with the journal was extremely poor. Most of the emails we received were generic, copy-pasted responses. Eventually, they stopped replying altogether, forcing us to contact Springer Nature support just to get an update on the peer review status. Unfortunately, it was a very disappointing experience. We ultimately had to withdraw the manuscript because the journal was unable to secure a second reviewer and showed no willingness to discuss potential solutions.
Motivation:
I received two reviews and both were quite different and agreed only in their negative recommendation. One was very short indeed and stated very summarily in just three sentences that the paper was coherent and well-written, but did not contain groundbreaking insights. The other was lengthy and focused on my bad style of writing and the alleged incoherence of the paper, and offered some petty criticism on individual statements, but no general evaluation/appreciation of its overall merits/shortcomings. It appeared that de second reviewer had difficulties reading and understanding my text, a problem the first reviewer did apparently not have. The second reviewer boasted knowledgeability in the field, but the few remarks on subject-specific issues he made, raised my doubts about his overall competence. The editor's decision did not show any attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions between both assessments. It gave rather the impression of a machine-made summary made and sent in the wee hours.
Motivation:
Quick turn-around for the desk reject.
Motivation:
Fast processing for the desk reject alongside a suggestion to transfer to PNAS Nexus.
Motivation:
Somewhat long for a desk reject. Although reasonable given the current policy of having at least two editors review every paper (both must agree with the decision). The editors were kind and, unexpectedly, provided me with thoughtful feedback on the manuscript.
Motivation:
Very fast turnaround, fair criticism.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided good content review, but once the content was set the editor kept asking for minor copyediting changes and requesting changes to the format of the tables. While some of these requests were part of the journal guidelines, there were quite a few that were not explicitly specified in the journal guidelines. Most importantly, the editor kept responding in an exasperated e-tone and in all caps. It was completely unprofessional and rude. In fact, in one instance, when I submitted the final minor changes, the process of uploading it changed it so that a table cell crossed pages and the editor in all caps told me that they had never experienced such inappropriate behavior from an author. Thus, I cannot ever recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The journal took 15 months and went through 4 rounds of external review, only to ultimately reject the manuscript. It was an incredible waste of time. After three rounds of major revisions, all reviewers agreed the paper was ready for publication—except for one reviewer. He rejected it twice, and on the third round, claimed that his expectations had now increased, bringing up completely new concerns that had never been mentioned before. This is utterly unreasonable. I strongly discourage anyone from submitting to this journal. Four rounds of review is an unacceptable burden and a form of academic exhaustion.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 91.2 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The editorial processing time of Journal of Youth and Adolescence is significantly longer than what is publicly claimed on the journal’s website. One of my manuscripts remained in the “Submitted” status for nearly a month before being desk rejected, with no sign of editorial handling during that time. A second submission also stayed in the “Submitted” status for a week, again with no update or editor assignment. This suggests that delays are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern.
If the journal is unable to meet its advertised turnaround times, it should consider revising those expectations to reflect reality. Transparency is essential, especially for early-career researchers who often rely on timely feedback and clear communication. While the journal has a strong reputation and publishes quality work, its editorial process could benefit from greater efficiency and honesty.
Recommendation: Proceed with caution if you are seeking a journal with fast and transparent editorial decisions.
If the journal is unable to meet its advertised turnaround times, it should consider revising those expectations to reflect reality. Transparency is essential, especially for early-career researchers who often rely on timely feedback and clear communication. While the journal has a strong reputation and publishes quality work, its editorial process could benefit from greater efficiency and honesty.
Recommendation: Proceed with caution if you are seeking a journal with fast and transparent editorial decisions.
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.