Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Chiang Mai Journal of Science has a good reviewing system. However, they take a long time in online publishing of their papers.
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
RSC Advances and in general all RSC journals have quite good reviewing policies. I always look for publishing papers in RSC journals.
Motivation:
It was a good experience to work with Prof. Herve Galons (Chief Editor, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry).
Motivation:
It was a fair encounter to work with RSC publications.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience of working with Jim Atwood, Editor of Journal of Coordination Chemistry.
Motivation:
RSC Advances ensures a speedy publication of the articles submitted to it.
Motivation:
Chemical Papers ensured fast publication of my research paper.
Motivation:
Medicinal Chemistry took a bit more time in publishing my final web version of the article.
Motivation:
Future Medicinal Chemistry served as a perfect platform for the publication of my article.
Motivation:
My revised manuscript was accepted for publication just in a single day's time. The publication process of this journal is awesome.
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
Biomedical Chromatography of Wiley ensured a very rapid publication of our paper.
Motivation:
NA
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
The process took way too long with as an output a terse and vague reviewers' report, a standard rejection letter, and 7 months of times wasted.
Motivation:
The acceptance to online publication was fast. The editor was very supportive.
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was highly standardized with almost no communication from the editor (as you would expect at such a large journal). One reviewer did a good job, the other not but was muted by the editor during the process.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected based on one excellent review within a week.
26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process itself was satisfactory. The only weak point was the quality of the reviewers' reports. I understand, however, that choosing the right reviewer for a given work can be a difficult task.
Motivation:
The editors took care to inform about the process, e.g. when the paper had been sent out to reviewers and the expected time frame. The editors also provided helpful comments in how to address the reviewers' comments so as to keep in line with the purposes of the journal.
Motivation:
I felt like the editor and reviewers provided me wit useable feedback that helped me to improve the accessibility of the paper to a broader audience.
Motivation:
It's efficient.
Motivation:
Lots of back and forth with the Reviewers through the Editor, which made for quick assessment of key sticking points. Presubmission systems saves a lot of time.
Motivation:
Presubmission enquiries very useful.