Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very fast
Motivation:
The form above does not consider the case where, after sending out to reviewers, no decision is made at all. After almost a year under review (50 weeks), no reviews and no decision were actually received. Despite my repeated requests and the repeated attempts of the Springer editorial assistant (who did their job excellently I must say), the handling editor failed to ensure that enough reviews were received in a reasonable amount of time. As a result, I had no choice but to withdraw the paper.
Based on my experience (which may have been isolated), I would urge colleagues not to submit to this journal, as in the 50 weeks I spent waiting for a decision that never came, I could have had 2 or more rounds of reviews elsewhere.
Based on my experience (which may have been isolated), I would urge colleagues not to submit to this journal, as in the 50 weeks I spent waiting for a decision that never came, I could have had 2 or more rounds of reviews elsewhere.
Motivation:
Very annoying to wait a full month for a desk reject
Motivation:
They spent over 25 days in "submitted to journal" status and rejected. They could have been faster.
Motivation:
Straight desk reject. I'd have been nice to tell us a bit more than "did not score quite highly enough on our main criteria".
Motivation:
Desk rejected after a 30-day wait. The email was not saying anything specific to the submitted manuscript "[...] we do not think that the technical advances presented will have a sufficiently substantial and immediate practical relevance to our readership [...]".
Motivation:
"[...] not convinced that these results represent a sufficiently large advance [...]"
Motivation:
While the initial round of reviews provided constructive feedback, the overall management of the manuscript was extremely inefficient. The process lasted 18 months in total, with more than 7 months spent waiting for a decision on the revised version. Ultimately, the editorial office admitted they were unable to secure any reviewers for the second round and that the handling editor would not take a responsibility for a decision based on the existing revisions. Despite the polite communication from the Journal Manager, the lack of proactive editorial handling forced me to withdraw the manuscript to avoid further indefinite delays. I advise colleagues to be cautious regarding the current administrative backlog of this journal.
Motivation:
The editor took more than four months to issue a desk rejection, which we consider discourteous; moreover, the decision was justified solely on the grounds that the topic was deemed “too specialized.”
Motivation:
I didn't exactly agree it wasn't a right fit, but I appreciate the fast response.
Motivation:
An editor was assigned the day after submission and it took over 40 day for an initial decision
Motivation:
The editorial process at this journal was significantly flawed and professionally damaging. It took the journal exactly 632 days to reach a final rejection decision. For an early-career researcher, a wait of nearly 1.75 years for a single outcome is unacceptable and demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the researcher's career and the temporal relevance of the data.
This extreme delay created a critical issue with the study's validity; a prediction model utilizing 2023 as a reference point is rendered obsolete when the review process extends into 2026. Despite this nearly two-year wait, the manuscript was ultimately rejected for "methodological concerns" that should have been addressed in the first month, not the 90.5th week. Furthermore, the massive drop in the journal's publication volume (from 17,000 papers in 2024 to a drastic reduction currently) suggests a journal in crisis. I strongly advise colleagues to avoid this journal to save their time and their careers.
This extreme delay created a critical issue with the study's validity; a prediction model utilizing 2023 as a reference point is rendered obsolete when the review process extends into 2026. Despite this nearly two-year wait, the manuscript was ultimately rejected for "methodological concerns" that should have been addressed in the first month, not the 90.5th week. Furthermore, the massive drop in the journal's publication volume (from 17,000 papers in 2024 to a drastic reduction currently) suggests a journal in crisis. I strongly advise colleagues to avoid this journal to save their time and their careers.
Motivation:
Even after three months, no handling editor had been assigned. The editorial office did not provide any reasonable indication of the expected timeframe, so we ultimately decided to withdraw.
Motivation:
Very strict assessment, but a fair critique.
Motivation:
Transfer to Cell Reports was offered.
Motivation:
Total time under review was 13 months.
No status updates were provided during this period.
Two reviews were eventually returned. Both were of reasonable technical quality and could have been produced within a standard 2-3 month timeframe. Both reviewer criticised and down scored the manuscript for not citing references from 2025, despite the manuscript having been submitted in early 2025 — these references did not exist at the time of submission.
Decision was rejection without opportunity for revision, despite reviewer recommending major revision and resubmission.
No status updates were provided during this period.
Two reviews were eventually returned. Both were of reasonable technical quality and could have been produced within a standard 2-3 month timeframe. Both reviewer criticised and down scored the manuscript for not citing references from 2025, despite the manuscript having been submitted in early 2025 — these references did not exist at the time of submission.
Decision was rejection without opportunity for revision, despite reviewer recommending major revision and resubmission.
Motivation:
The manuscript was initially submitted to BMC Neurology in March 2026. On March 7th a editor was assigned. Unfortunately, it remained with the editor for nearly a year without entering the formal review process. Despite repeated attempts to obtain clarification from the editor, associate editor, and editorial office, we did not receive a resolution. We therefore decided to withdraw the manuscript from BMC Neurology in February.
Motivation:
The manuscript was with the editor for more than six months without any advancement. The editor ghosted the corresponding author and refused to provide updates, but was very quick to respond when we decided to withdraw the manuscript. The editorial team never owned up to their unprofessionalism. Not recommended.
Motivation:
After three months the review prosee actually still did not start.
Motivation:
Rejected after 26 days. To be honest, when I saw on scirev that a senior had written about being rejected at the table for 25 days but had survived for 25 days and even celebrated a little, I never expected the retribution to come so soon (laugh). The advantage of the internal audit is that they did review the papers and put forward two relatively precise opinions. The drawback is that the efficiency is indeed not commendable. Four days after submission, "with editor+UR". Twenty days after submission, "with editor" disappears, leaving only "UR". Personally, I guess only the UR after we disappeared was truly under review by the editorial department. But from this perspective, the efficiency was quite low. Basically, there was no progress for about twenty full days.
Motivation:
It took over 7 months for the manuscript to be sent to reviewers. Once it was, 6 agreed to review, however the paper was rejected less than a month later with only two reviews, one of which was detailed and positive (3 pages of formatted text) and the other very superficial but negative (3 paragraphs of plain text). The editor's comments were a rewording of the negative review, and I suspect that they didn't download the more positive and detailed report which was provided as a pdf file rather than text comments on the review form.
Motivation:
- fast screening
- reasonable comments
- reasonable comments
Motivation:
Decision was taken by an associate editor that considered the paper outside the scope of the Journal., without any further details. This was somewhat unexpected since the Journal published several similar works in the past.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 81.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The system indicated that the manuscript was 'Under Review,' so I assumed the peer-review process was underway. However, after three months of no updates, I inquired with the journal, only to find out that the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) had not even assigned an Associate Editor yet. Upon learning this, I immediately withdrew my manuscript.
Motivation:
After i submitted my revised manuscript the system remained with editor for many months i contacted the editorial office and springer and no one helped me the answer was always that they are actively handling my manuscript. for one year they are handling it from 14 june 2025 and now its 26 may 2026 and its still with the editor. This caused much delay for me and frustration so i withdrawed the paper at the end.
Motivation:
Simple desk reject.
Motivation:
Simple desk reject without much information gained.
Motivation:
Quick desk reject, allows us to move on without waiting for long.
Motivation:
My experience with the editorial process was disappointing. After submitting my manuscript, the paper remained with the editor for approximately 18 days without being sent for peer review or showing any meaningful progress in the review process. Communication regarding the manuscript's status was limited, and there was no indication of when the review process would begin. Due to the lack of movement and uncertainty regarding the timeline, I decided to withdraw the manuscript. The withdrawal was processed, and the final disposition was recorded as "Withdrawn."
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
Motivation:
ISA Transactions desk rejection followed by reported eight-month submission restriction; unclear policy basis requested.
Motivation:
We received no notice over 17 months about this submission, although it seemed (inside the authors login) that several reviewers had agreed to review. We emailed multiple contacts at Springer Nature including sending a hard copy letter to BMC offices in London. Eventually we received an email saying that the editor withdrew our paper saying "Your submission entitled "XXX", which you submitted to BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth was found to be unsuitable for publication. A thorough assessment showed that the paper contains issues, including but not limited to: Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards. It has therefore been removed from our system. The factors taken into consideration in arriving at our decision to withdraw your paper do not allow us to offer an opportunity for resubmission or appeal."
We could not see how our paper was "Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards" because BMC published our very similar paper in 2023. We asked for the reviews that underpinned this 'withdrawal'- note that it was not 'rejected' - but had no response. I suspect that there were no reviewers reports and they wanted to get rid of it. In addition, this journal says they can pass on to other Springer Nature journals without full resubmission but this was not offered to us.
In addition, I have had one publication that went through well but 4 other poor experiences with this journal, including bad experiences reviewing for them; no response to pointing out misleading results in a publication; and a violation of our copyright that they eventually denied they had authorised. Also another experience of paper being rejected, I'll submit that separately. Overall, I do not recommend this journal
We could not see how our paper was "Poor contribution to the field, unclear definition of problem or methodological issues, insufficient arguments, lack of focus, or did not meet our ethical standards" because BMC published our very similar paper in 2023. We asked for the reviews that underpinned this 'withdrawal'- note that it was not 'rejected' - but had no response. I suspect that there were no reviewers reports and they wanted to get rid of it. In addition, this journal says they can pass on to other Springer Nature journals without full resubmission but this was not offered to us.
In addition, I have had one publication that went through well but 4 other poor experiences with this journal, including bad experiences reviewing for them; no response to pointing out misleading results in a publication; and a violation of our copyright that they eventually denied they had authorised. Also another experience of paper being rejected, I'll submit that separately. Overall, I do not recommend this journal
Motivation:
It took a year and a half to receive the review report after submission, and they rejected the paper without allowing the author any explanation. It's a waste of time and shows no respect for scholarship. I sincerely advise against submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The challenges faced by early-career scholars are particularly acute in the humanities, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
I just received a first decision on a manuscript after 18 months of waiting—just a heads-up for anyone thinking of submitting to Cold War History (Taylor & Francis). Despite making several inquiries about the status of my submission, I was repeatedly told that the journal had been unable to secure suitable reviewers, leading to prolonged delays in the review process.
I get that peer review takes time, but 18 months for a decision is just unacceptable. It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. After a year and a half of silence, it was a straight-up rejection with zero opportunity to submit revisions or address the feedback.
It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. I hope that future authors will not encounter the same difficulties and prolonged uncertainty that I experienced during this process, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
I just received a first decision on a manuscript after 18 months of waiting—just a heads-up for anyone thinking of submitting to Cold War History (Taylor & Francis). Despite making several inquiries about the status of my submission, I was repeatedly told that the journal had been unable to secure suitable reviewers, leading to prolonged delays in the review process.
I get that peer review takes time, but 18 months for a decision is just unacceptable. It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. After a year and a half of silence, it was a straight-up rejection with zero opportunity to submit revisions or address the feedback.
It makes it impossible to plan your research or career, especially if you're on a tight timeline. I hope that future authors will not encounter the same difficulties and prolonged uncertainty that I experienced during this process, where lengthy review processes and limited publication opportunities can significantly affect academic development.
Motivation:
I am honestly disappointed with the editorial handling of my manuscript at Empirical Economics. The decision took a long time, from late March to mid-June, yet the final explanation was quite brief and not fully convincing.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
What I find frustrating is that the rejection appears to be based mainly on the argument that the manuscript does not introduce a new econometric technique. However, Empirical Economics is, by its name and scope, a journal associated with empirical research. If the journal gives priority mainly to methodological innovation, this expectation should be communicated more clearly to authors before submission.
I also find the reference to the journal retaining less than 5% of submitted papers unsatisfactory as an explanation. A low acceptance rate should not replace a transparent and detailed assessment of the manuscript’s academic merits.
Overall, the process felt slow, not very transparent, and somewhat inconsistent with what I would reasonably expect from a journal in empirical economics.
Motivation:
Appreciated that it was not a boilerplate rejection. Editor's comments showed they had read it, they briefly explained why they felt it wasn't a fit, and then suggested the domain for alternative venues.
Motivation:
Our experience submitting to Scientific Reports was deeply disappointing on multiple fronts, and I would caution other researchers before choosing this journal.
First, we submitted specifically to be included in a Special Collection, which was the primary reason we chose Scientific Reports over other Journals. At no point during the editorial process were we informed that the Special Collection had changed or been discontinued. We only learned of this after the article had been paid for and published. We had also chosen to endure a particularly terrible editorial process because of this Special Collection.
Second, the timeline was unacceptable by any standard. Nearly a year passed from submission to acceptance. Our first revision alone took close to seven months (despite only 2 reviewers) and dozens of follow-up communications from our team to the Editorial office. Responses were slow and required persistent effort just to get basic status updates.
Third, and most concerning, we received conflicting information from the editorial team throughout those status update communications — information that appeared to misrepresent our manuscript's status. At best, the information we received was misleading and not transparent. They also refused to call or meet virtually to provide any explanation.
The quality of the peer review itself may be fine, but the editorial management surrounding it was not. Researchers should be aware of these issues before committing their work here.
First, we submitted specifically to be included in a Special Collection, which was the primary reason we chose Scientific Reports over other Journals. At no point during the editorial process were we informed that the Special Collection had changed or been discontinued. We only learned of this after the article had been paid for and published. We had also chosen to endure a particularly terrible editorial process because of this Special Collection.
Second, the timeline was unacceptable by any standard. Nearly a year passed from submission to acceptance. Our first revision alone took close to seven months (despite only 2 reviewers) and dozens of follow-up communications from our team to the Editorial office. Responses were slow and required persistent effort just to get basic status updates.
Third, and most concerning, we received conflicting information from the editorial team throughout those status update communications — information that appeared to misrepresent our manuscript's status. At best, the information we received was misleading and not transparent. They also refused to call or meet virtually to provide any explanation.
The quality of the peer review itself may be fine, but the editorial management surrounding it was not. Researchers should be aware of these issues before committing their work here.
Motivation:
It was a tortuously slow process to receive a decision on our original submission and even then there was only one review provided. We responded thoroughly to the reviewer's comments and yet still were rejected upon resubmission with no reasoning provided from the editor other than that the sole reviewer recommended rejection.
Motivation:
The reviews were interesting and informed. Although they were positive, the manuscript was rejected without a clear explanation from the editors. Aside from this, the journal is relatively fast and well managed.