Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
1.3 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
1.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.3 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
5.0 / 5.0 (very difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.7 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.7 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 4.9 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
I thought that the peer review process was outstanding. The initial decision came very quickly (only ~35 days after submission) with meticulous reviews written by three reviewers in addition to a statistical methods reviewer. The editors also made very helpful comments about how to frame the study in such a way that would be more applicable to a general cardiology audience. The revisions that were requested by the EIC, associate editor, and the four peer reviewers were extensive, and the revision process was certainly more difficult and time-consuming than writing the initial paper itself. However, I believe that their comments helped us make the paper significantly stronger. In all, I was very pleased with the speed and quality of the reviews. If I ever happen to write another paper with a message that would be a good fit for a flagship journal such as this, I will certainly submit it to JACC again.