Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
the first review process was very slow
Motivation:
the editorial process was serious and efficient
the editorial process was serious and efficient
Motivation:
A revision making by external reviewers helps to improve greatly your manuscript. What happens is that sometimes it is a long and cumbersome process because like happened to me, my manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers, which I answered all of their requirements. Later, they sent the manuscript to a third reviewer that made me more requirements. I.e., when I thought the process was over, it began again. The manuscript improved a lot, but it took a very long time.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. One of the reviews I got was very helpful. The other one was very positive and easy to address, but not that helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
The bad rating for the way the manuscript was handled reflects the actual reviewer's comments, which were inflammatory and insulting, but not the way the editor in chief handled the case, which was very good. We received an initial rejection based on gross misinterpretation of our data, combined with prejudice and ignorance on the side of the reviewers. When we pointed this out to the editor in chief, he agreed with us and overruled the external reviewer's negative recommendations and went on to accept the paper. In this case, we were lucky that the editor in chief was knowledgeable on the subject and intervened. Bad and prejudiced reviews would otherwise have blocked publication, which would unfortunately not have been the first time.
Motivation:
The reviewing process in TSF, as well as in other Elsevier journal, is organised fairly well, though sometimes it takes a rather long time.
Motivation:
I was simple
Motivation:
While most comments received were fair and relevant, a few seemed to show that the reviewer was not familiar with the area or were very trivial and would be picked up during routine editing (full stop missing in reference list)
Motivation:
The review process was fast, it took less than month and submission and article tracking system was perfect
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and efficient.
I was impressed with the quality of the reviews and the feedback form the editor.
I was impressed with the quality of the reviews and the feedback form the editor.
Motivation:
I was appalled with the lack of review before reject at the journal. When I appealled the rejection-without-review I received this comment:
"Thank you for your emails. This is to inform you that you have not received a response to your email because Prof. Albertsson is out of the office traveling this week and will be back next week.
"
It seems that the editor did not reject the article, her editorial assistant did, on the basis that " this is an extended investigation of your earlier work"! This type of unsubstantiated rejection that you sent us calls the entire review process into question.
"Thank you for your emails. This is to inform you that you have not received a response to your email because Prof. Albertsson is out of the office traveling this week and will be back next week.
"
It seems that the editor did not reject the article, her editorial assistant did, on the basis that " this is an extended investigation of your earlier work"! This type of unsubstantiated rejection that you sent us calls the entire review process into question.
Motivation:
It is very important for me when I revised a manuscript: a) Concise and clear Objective , b) Adequate Design and Methodological Methods (devices, error of measure of it, Statistical methods...), c) Clinical relevance, (new aspects, that supposes, conclusions of manuscript in clinical aspects).
Motivation:
The review was extensive and thorough. Itr challenged us to revise our discussion, being more critical and theoretical regarding our findings and conclusions. the published paper was much better for it.