Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was very quick and all comments were clear and fair. I may have been lucky that it was a slack time of year for reviewers (Dec/Jan) but as an author I could not have asked for more!
Motivation:
The review process was fairly raid. Most comments were fair and the editor allowed me to argue that one or two comments should be ignored.
Motivation:
I was disappointed that both the editor and one of the reviewers failed to understand a key concept addressed in the paper. Consequently their comments largely missed the point. I suspect the editor (who is an expert in this field) took the reviewer comments at face value rather than reading the paper closely himself. But at least the process did not take too long!
Motivation:
Initial review was very slow (7 months) and the quality of reviews was variable. But it was good to have 4 reviews as you are less likely to be hit by 1 or 2 "rogue reviewers"!
Motivation:
The NIST report, provided by the journal, is highly relevant to the quality of the publication. It should be extended to all journals.
Motivation:
I was very happy with the quality of the reviews I received. The reviewers were very knowledgeable about the topic, and pointed out (constructively!) a number of important points which I had neglected in the first submission. The final product was much improved thanks to the reviewers and editor. This was my first time submitting to this journal, but I will certainly submit again.
Motivation:
We got proofs six months after the editorial decision.
Motivation:
High quality review
Motivation:
Comments made by reviewers were not especially relevant, nor deep. They help only moderately to improve the paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers provide rich and detailled comments at each round of revision. This really helps to improve the paper.
Motivation:
The editor quickly explained how the paper had to be modified and promptly responded to these changes. Quick and efficient review and editing process.
Motivation:
There were several delays in getting the initial reviews. Once we got past that, things progressed well until the article was delayed in production due to issues with the publisher.
Motivation:
Among the online submission systems that I have used SAGE publishing was exceptionally fast in the revision stage, as well as in the stage of manuscript submission for the first time referee evaluation.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I felt, it is a little long time to get manuscript number.
Motivation:
Excellent reviewers. Great turn around time.
Motivation:
The initial review process took longer than expected. The journal requests that reviews be submitted in 3 weeks, but it took about 12 weeks to get a response. The reviewers didn't seem to have many comments of substance, but revision was requested. This would have been less irksome of the initial decision had come sooner. It is worth noting that the proofing process introduced grammatical and spelling mistakes into the paper that hadn't been present previously.
Motivation:
The journal requests that reviews be completed within 3 weeks, so it's disappointing that this process took nearly 16 weeks. Typesetting/proofing introduced errors into the manuscript. The editors were flexible about the timing of publication.
Motivation:
The second round took a bit too long