Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.3 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Scirev did not allow us to enter that the review process was as following:
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 35.0 days
Drawn back
2022
Motivation:
The journal timeline is a bit deceiving. They keep returning the manuscript back as "unsubmitted" so each time you revise and resubmit the submission date is a new date. That is why the average review time on the website is 10 days, otherwise, it takes several MONTHS which is not an issue at all. I mean, the goal is to have publications of high quality. But using a "trick" to the keep review time short put me off.
19.0 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The editorial and peer-review process was quite long, and the status on the manuscript central was not updated to show the actual status of our paper at the different stages. This meant we spent a lot of time trying to get answers from the editor(s) about the paper, as we had not heard from them in months at one point.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Quick turnaround time for the decision, but the decision was utterly unfair - both reviewers had critiques that were easy to fix. We appealed and were granted the appeal, but then did not hear back for over 3 months as the reviewers then never responded. So we withdrew the manuscript completely. Extremely disappointing handling of the manuscript.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
One reviewer gave me constructive advice, but the other wrote somewhat negative emotional comments on the submitted manuscript. Associate editor stated that he also read the manuscript and that the submitted ms was a recycling paper I had published before. However, I was sure that he did not read the ms nor my published paper before ,because the published year he noted was wrong and the analyses and results differed completely.
3.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Fast reviewing process
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
5.9 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017