Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 125.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Submitting the manuscript was easy. After that, I waited for ~10 weeks before I sent an e-mail to ask about the status. Initially, the editorial office told that our manuscript was with the editor (which I also read on their website) and that they asked the editor for an update. Since I didn't get any feedback, me and my professor made additional inquiries with no results. Finally, we sent an ultimatum on which they didn't respond as well. We lost our trust in the reviewing process and draw back our manuscript. Cynically, the editorial office sent a confirmation of the withdrawn manuscript in 3 hours. A lot of time was wasted.
Motivation:
Slow and flawed editorial process.
The review of our revised manuscript took over four months, despite repeated assurances of a decision "within two weeks." Reviewers were critical but constructive. In the end, it appeared the manuscript was rejected not for its content, but because the journal no longer wished to handle it after their own prolonged delays.
The review of our revised manuscript took over four months, despite repeated assurances of a decision "within two weeks." Reviewers were critical but constructive. In the end, it appeared the manuscript was rejected not for its content, but because the journal no longer wished to handle it after their own prolonged delays.
Motivation:
Although the response was a rejection (on the basis of inappropriate fit for the journal), I appreciated the rapid (same day!) response and the friendly tone. An exemplary experience.
Motivation:
Desk reject. They suggested a more specialized journal due to limited space, and will refund the submission few.
Motivation:
The overall review and editorial process was very fast and positive. Recommend you this journal.
Motivation:
The desk rejection was very fast, so no time was lost.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 91.2 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I want to express my disappointment with the process taking 3 months, which I also find extremely discouraging, considering the unfavourable outcome as l chose to withdraw my manuscript. I can see that the reviewers are very positive; the first reviewer apparently recommended acceptance with brief comments, and the second reviewer elaborated extensively on their comments to further develop the manuscript. In the face of these positive reviews, the editor decided to send the manuscript to another reviewer, who would be commissioned in the unknown future. I can understand that the editor might not find the manuscript publishable for some reason, or simply does not want to take the time to assess it. However, the editor could have given a desk rejection three months ago if they thought so, which would have saved both my and the reviewers' time and labour. This would have been the more respectful option.
Motivation:
A fast desk rejection, the editors did not provide any useful comments on how to improve the manuscript quality.
Motivation:
The rejection based on reviewer comments felt more like a decision that should have been an editorial desk rejection. At least the decision was made relatively fast.
Motivation:
The editor rejected it very quickly, which was actually appreciated
Motivation:
The editor did not see our manuscript fit within the journal scope and suggested alternative journal options.
Motivation:
The reviewer criticized the paper for not addressing the topic in a manner that aligned with their preferred conceptualization of the research scope. Although my co-author and I clearly demonstrated how the paper's focus aligned with the existing body of literature, this argument was not acknowledged. The editor rendered a decisive judgment without providing substantive justification for why the paper was deemed unsuitable. The decision was terse and appeared final, requiring acceptance solely on the basis of editorial authority. No meaningful consideration was given to the paper’s intended contribution or to its consistency with prior research.
Motivation:
Fast immediate rejection, so I don't have any complaints. The manuscript was screened for originality, timeliness, public health relevance and suitability for the Bulletin's general readership, and was rejected because it did not meet these standards.
Motivation:
This journal has nothing to do with professionalism. The editor sent the article for peer review 1 day after I sent it. And it waited for 10 months for peer review. When I finally asked for information about the process, they said they couldn't find a referee and that I could withdraw the article if I wanted. But I didn't and a referee accepted the review. However, they rejected it regardless of the referee's opinions. What a disgrace. Never send an article.
Motivation:
Although the journal's administrative staff were prompt and courteous in responding to emails, we found the editorial handling, particularly by the Associate Editors less consistent. After receiving a decision for minor revision and submitting the revised manuscript, we were unexpectedly given a major revision, which is uncommon at this stage of the process. Given this shift and the uncertainty surrounding the decision-making process, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript. Based on this experience, we would advise prospective authors to consider the journal’s editorial approach carefully before submitting.
Motivation:
4 reviewers in total ready our manuscript. They were very dogmatic in their approach to analytical chemistry which led them to reject our manuscript three times. Tired of appealing to an inexperienced editor we decided to send our manuscript to a high impact science journal. After 6.4 weeks our manuscript was accepted, following reports of 5 reviewers none of which questioning our methods!
Motivation:
Overall, the handling of the manuscript was prompt.
11-June-2025 Received
12-June-2025 To Advisor
23-June-2025 From All Advisors
23-June-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
27-June-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
11-June-2025 Received
12-June-2025 To Advisor
23-June-2025 From All Advisors
23-June-2025 Under Evaluation (From All Advisors)
27-June-2025 Rejected-Transfer Offered
Motivation:
It is ACS Chemical Biology's policy to return a proportion of manuscripts without sending them to external referees. Decisions of this kind are made by members of the Board of Editors (BOE), often on the advice of regular advisers, when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
Motivation:
The journal appears overly fixated on certain formalistic requirements. For instance, during the review process, they demanded raw data and insisted that IRB approval dates must precede data collection. While rigor is certainly commendable, excessive formalism becomes counterproductive—especially when the editorial team disregards researchers' explanations, wasting everyone's time. In fact, our study did not involve any physical or psychological impact on participants; it was merely a social survey on certain attitudes, which arguably did not require IRB approval at all. Ironically, our commitment to rigor—providing the IRB approval number—ended up becoming the very reason for rejection.
Motivation:
We obtain two reviews of poor quality. The first one was decent, but prepared by someone with little knowledge on the paper's topic or methods used. It recommended revisions. The other one completely lacked substance, was jus a set of generic negative statements with no connection to the paper. This one recommended rejection. The editor rejected the paper based on the second, poor quality review, instead of seeking additional more substantial reviews.
Motivation:
My article was first reviewed by the editor and after making some changes, it was sent to three reviewers. The reviewing process was very professional and impartial, and after three revisions, the article was accepted. Although the submission process took almost a year to accept, the article became much better than the first day, considering the reviewers' recommendations.
Motivation:
The editorial office operates quite professionally, with standard procedures in both processing speed and peer review. The reviewers' expertise varies—some are not very familiar with statistical methods but are willing to discuss with us, while one even had a hidden agenda, demanding we cite a bunch of his irrelevant papers. However, the editors are quite responsible, possibly recognizing some reviewers' lack of professionalism, as they added more reviewers in the second round. Overall, the journal's editorial team is diligent and conscientious, accepting a broad range of topics without overly emphasizing depth but prioritizing research rigor, making it a good choice for novice submissions.
Motivation:
The entire process was fast, clear, and very professional. They have the best editorial team in absolute terms in the field.
Motivation:
Two extensive reviews and a brief justification for the decision by the editor. Obviously we'd have liked a different outcome, but novelty and lack of fit are difficult to argue...
Motivation:
Very quick process. Also generally good comments that subtantiate a rejection but help improve the paper further.
Motivation:
The editor did not update me on the status of the manuscript, and only after three months decided to reject it because no reviewers accepted to review it
Motivation:
IEEE TBME is highly selective
Motivation:
Disappointing experience trying to publish in this journal. Just two months after submission, the tracking system showed that one reviewer had submitted their report, but the second reviewer, who allegedly agreed to review, never submitted their report for over seven months. Nine months after submitting my paper, I was never contacted with any updates. They simply told me that it depends on the reviewer's availability. As a result, I decided to withdraw my manuscript.
Motivation:
immediate rejection reasoning was nonsensical
8.4 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The Journal is a high-quality one, regarding to multidisciplinary submissions. I got 2 reviewers in short time with good feedback to improve quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
This was supposed to be a simple 2,000 word case report. It did not require 6 reviewers and comments - the most ridiculous practice I have ever seen for a journal with a relatively low impact factor. Only two reviewers needed max. One of the 6 reviewers used AI to complete the review, as there were comments that didn't apply to the manuscript. I will not be submitting to this journal again, way too much work the type of journal and impact factor.