Latest review
First review round: 5.0 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
The overall process of publishing with EJN was very smooth and quite fast. The reviewer's reports were fair and properly argumented, without necessarily providing any strikingly novel insights. I found strange that the journal gave out the names of the reviewers at the end of the review process - I think the lack of anonymity might discourage reviewers from being too critical, and even discourage some from reviewing at all. It is good that the review content is public, but the names shouldn't be public. Other than this I really liked publishing in this journal.
