Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This claims the title of the most dysfunctional manuscript handling in my career, with over 100 submissions. After two months, the paper was still not under review despite several emails to the editorial office. After I offered to suggest ten reviewers, the editorial assistant wrote me that the journal could not take suggestions because it would breach the integrity of the review process. It's an absolute mess of a journal. I strongly advise scholars to steer clear of it as long as the current editorial team is in office.
Motivation:
The prompt and high-quality review of my article in this journal was truly enjoyable.
Motivation:
- Excessively long time until i received a review report
- The review report was kind of short
- More than a year between submission and publication
- The review report was kind of short
- More than a year between submission and publication
Motivation:
This journal meets the important criteria of speed and accuracy in article reviewing.
Motivation:
I was quite disappointed with the process. There was no feedback about any progress on the article (the system continuously said, "Awaiting assignment to editor" or something like that) until we sent repeated inquiries. Finally, we got a desk rejection four months after submission claiming that the article was off-topic. Whether that was the case or not, it should not have taken four months to tell us that.
Motivation:
If you are in a hurry and want to publish in short time. I must prefer this journal. Overall rating: 10/10. Everything was smooth throughout the procedure.
Motivation:
Very poor quality reviews. Two peer reviewers focused on detailing their own subjective experiences rather than evaluating the paper. One other reviewer also appeared not to have read the article.
Motivation:
The manuscript was stuck with the editorial manager for over a month, with zero progress and zero response after three emails. There was no action from the editor either until one more email was sent directly to the editor's email. I received a rejection email from the editor within the same day, and in that email, the editor cited a manuscript that was not mine, i.e., the wrong title.
Motivation:
This was the fastest turnaround time I've had at any journal. The editor was very quick and took a genuine interest in the work.
Motivation:
The editor was an active participant in the review process, essentially functioning as a third reviewer. While this added a lot of work, it led to a final outcome of high quality.
Motivation:
Journal submission cycle is too long, reviewers don't review manuscripts and editors don't add reviewers
Motivation:
The journal was not able to find reviewers, and when he finally found a second one, this gave a very small and generic feedback. Basically, after 5 months waiting, only one reviewer reviewed my paper and solely decided for its rejection
Motivation:
If an appropriate reviewer cannot be found, editorial office could not solve the prolem.
Motivation:
Declining the manuscript after two rounds of review due to its length seems excessive.
Motivation:
Long process with a range in the quality of reviewers.
Motivation:
I have never gone through 4 revisions for an article, but am grateful that the editors did not give up on us despite a difficult reviewer who insisted on a misunderstanding.