Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor accepted the paper without peer review. I asked for information about this decision, but I never received an answer or explanation. I withdrew the article because of the journal’s poor professionalism.
Motivation:
The manuscript was with the editor for more than six months without any advancement. The editors ignored the corresponding author and refused to provide updates, but were very quick to respond when we decided to withdraw the manuscript. The editorial team never owned up to their unprofessionalism. Not recommended.
Motivation:
Incredibly slow process. An 11 month turnaround time is simply unacceptable. The explanation provided by the journal was that they had trouble finding reviewers, but this was only provided in response to an enquiry after I had heard nothing from the journal for 7 months. Two of the three reviewers made sensible suggestions that will improve the quality of the paper. However reviewer 3 made a point that failed to engage with the existing research referenced in the paper arguing that the piece was deficient for not investigating the impact of an independent variable that has been shown to have no significant impact on the dependent variable in recent research conducted on the same case study. A competent reviewer should at least acknowledge the findings of existing research cited in the paper. Overall the quality of the reviews would not deter me from submitting to the journal in future, but the extremely lengthy turnaround time will.
Motivation:
Very, very slow first round review, and then we only received one reviewer report.
Motivation:
It was a pleasant experience overall. The first review round took more than a year, but this is typical for mathematical journals.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews has been waiting for a long time. Once we sent a query to the editor about the status of the paper, only then did the paper go for review. Everything else is fine. The four reviews were useful and contributed significantly to the improvement of the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow.
Motivation:
Reviewers and Editor(s) asked for changes without significance. I think most of it was made using AI tools.
Motivation:
The review process was very long. Changing the reviewers led to conflicting opinions.
The journal's editor-in-chief was professional and cooperative.
The journal's editor-in-chief was professional and cooperative.
Motivation:
This journal sucks, and I am sorry for the people that published here or maybe some people had betetr experiences than mine. But the journal is a piece of trash. Reviewers are meh, EDITORS ARE IDIOTS WITH HUGE EGOS. They have HUGE problems with their board! . I will not write all the problems I had with them, but to me this journal should be removed forever from Elsevier. Is trash!
Motivation:
One reviewer said '... only combimee A and B ... no speicific ... trivial framework.' (yes, combimee and speicific) in one sentence, with no more reason, giving a rejection. While the other praised my paper at first, then wanted me to add a lot of work just to cite his 2 papers, suggesting a major revision. Submitting to this journal is a waste of time. To my fellow researchers: do not blindly submit here just for the fast turnaround. This 'speed' appears to be driven by editorial KPIs rather than anything else.
Motivation:
It took the editor some time to locate suitable reviewers, but it was probably because of the topic of my work. The editorial office has been responsive to my inquiry emails.
Motivation:
The review process was too long (5 months), and we ended up having only one reviewer.
The reviewer made relevant comments and asked for more precision and explanations about the reasoning. Then, the editor rejected the paper outright without any more explanations, forwarding R1's comment.
The reviewer made relevant comments and asked for more precision and explanations about the reasoning. Then, the editor rejected the paper outright without any more explanations, forwarding R1's comment.
Motivation:
Extremely satisfied with the review process. The Editor-in-Chief was accessible and pleasant to interact with, and the Associate Editor was equally approachable and demonstrated a genuine interest in the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments, as well as those from the Associate Editor, reflected a strong level of engagement and rigor, and contributed substantially to improving the quality of the manuscript.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience, with a reasonable review and timing.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience overall. The quality of the review was high. However, the second review round (after a minor revision, with no further comments) took more than a year.
Motivation:
The first decision and review outcome came almost early. After re-submission, apparently the reviewer 2 did not review the revisions and the manuscript was sent to reviewer three. The process took 4 to 6 months (I have lost the track!)
Reviewer 3 rejected manuscript because he believed it is not in the scope of Trials. Editor specifically anounced that my manuscript IS in the scope of the journal but did nothing to correct the reviewer.
One month later and I'm still waiting for a final decision. Last time i checked, it was reassigned to reviewers.
Reviewer 3 rejected manuscript because he believed it is not in the scope of Trials. Editor specifically anounced that my manuscript IS in the scope of the journal but did nothing to correct the reviewer.
One month later and I'm still waiting for a final decision. Last time i checked, it was reassigned to reviewers.
Motivation:
The editor assigned to the manuscript was very kind in every consultation and responded to each of our questions. The only observation is that the publication process is very slow, from the first contact to the acceptance of the final version. However, the wait was worth it, as the reviewers’ feedback contributed to a substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The manuscript submission was rejected for the reason stated by the editor: 'due to the way we define our scope and gate criteria', and it was returned with one reviewer's comment one month after it was submitted
Motivation:
This experience of this journal was very bad! I do not know why this journal was being slower and worse!!!
Motivation:
My article was first given a “minor revision” decision. After that, I waited from August 2023 to August 2024 for a second minor revision. The article was finally accepted on December 2024.
This means I submitted the article in January 2023, and the final acceptance came in December 2024, with publication in January 2025. In other words, the entire process took nearly two years, which is unacceptable.
For an article with only minor revisions, the expected timeline is usually a few weeks to a few months. Waiting more than a year for a minor revision decision is unusually long and inefficient on the part of the journal.
This means I submitted the article in January 2023, and the final acceptance came in December 2024, with publication in January 2025. In other words, the entire process took nearly two years, which is unacceptable.
For an article with only minor revisions, the expected timeline is usually a few weeks to a few months. Waiting more than a year for a minor revision decision is unusually long and inefficient on the part of the journal.
Motivation:
Thus was first time when I had bad story with ACS journals. First, the manuscript was submitted to ACS Energy Letters, but immediately declined and advised transfer to J. Phys. Chem. I declined this offer and submitted to J. Phys.Chem. Lett instead. Still, it was rejected and advised transferring to J. Phys. Chem. again, which was accepted. The reviewer's report in J. Phys. Chem. Lett. was negative but constructive and fast. J. Phys. Chem. C considered the transferred manuscript 1.5 months, attracting only one reviewer whose report was negative and non-constructive, I would say even biased, since answers to all queries concerning the manuscript were negative, presenting the manuscript as it would not have any merit. Although Editor mentioned "the scientific merit" of the manuscript and offered transfer to ACS Omega, this offer was not accepted in view of the wasted time given for the biased review. Thus, I lost more than 2 months with ACS journals with no constructive outcome. Next time I will be more careful with similar offers regarding transfer to J. Phys. Chem.