Review of Scientific Instruments

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Review of Scientific Instruments has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a
Disciplines: Instrumentation

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.3 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.6 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.5 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 1.5 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 15.1 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The Editor didn't seem to care much about the manuscript although the journal itself has been known for publishing strong papers in related areas so I am really puzzled by this attitude. On the pros: there is a good TeX template and the Editorial staff seem to be responsive, plus the status tracking system is fairly transparent. On the downside: they couldn't find suitable reviewers fast enough so they asked me to provide a list of potential reviewers, which I did twice. After about ~2 months of waiting, they found two reviewers. At the end of the first round of reviews, one of the reviewer found the paper to be excellent while the other one didn't read past the first half and stated he wasn't happy at all, not even giving any detailed criticism to the points made in the paper. So after a mild revision which mainly concerned re-working the introduction and conclusions, the manuscript was sent back for reviews. After about 1.5 months, the Editor got back saying the Reviewer recommended to change the title. SInce this change wasn't really necessary at that time, I thought what the reviewer really wanted was an explanation to a few words in the title, so I modified the Introduction to clarify this. The manuscript has then been sent back to the Reviewers again, and the final round took about 35 days. The Reviewer then proposed another change of title which seemed to make more sense, which I did. Finally, after a few days the manuscript was accepted.