Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
High quality and profound reviews by knowledgeable experts. Their very careful comments took some time to process but they were all correct and they have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. The editor was quite professional and quick with notifications and replies to my queries.
21.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The overall rating of the review process is very good due to the duration of the review and to the selection of the Reviewers, that showed expertise in the fieldof my paper.
Motivation:
No
Motivation:
Each of the 'reviews' was one short paragraph saying that it didn't seem to add sufficiently new information to the understanding of the melatonin rhythms of delayed sleep phase disorder. In our opinion and that of Journal of Biological Rhythms these reviewers' opinions were unsubstantiated and incorrect.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments with thoughtful, positive, and helpful for revision. The editor liked the topic of the paper and felt its findings were important. Overall it was a positive experience.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The submisson process was straighforward. The first review round was quick. The four reviewers comments were thourough and to the point although one reviewer was seemed negative on the study design and did not align with the other reviewers. This fact made the manuscript go through a second review. The editor was quick to accept the paper after additional explanations/comments from our side. All positive experience although it might seem too cumbersume to enroll four reviewers when three would be suffiecient in this case.
Motivation:
Overall positive experience
Motivation:
The process was quick to be a high-impact journal and demand. Corrections were positive friendly language. Trabjo visibility was very hight, around 1700 views in a year.
Motivation:
The selected editor waited more than 50 days before even accepting to be editor. No specific comments were made on the papers
Motivation:
good process of review
Motivation:
I was impressed by the speedy response from the editorial board in terms of acknowledging receipt of my submitted paper, and even more by the positive response from the Editor in chief himself in accepting my article without further editing, except for basic formatting, over a very short duration time. Very inspiring to authors like myself.
Motivation:
Excellent review with constructive helpful suggestions to improve article, and speed of review.
Motivation:
The first reviewer accepted the manuscript as it was written. The second reviewer requested the re-arrangement of manuscript sections for better thought flow and reference list update. The requests were justified.
Motivation:
a very good journal
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We were very satisfied with this journal.
Especially, editor and reviewers give us to very helpful comments to improve manuscripts.
Also, we were pleased with fast review process.
Then, we recommend to submit this journal.
Especially, editor and reviewers give us to very helpful comments to improve manuscripts.
Also, we were pleased with fast review process.
Then, we recommend to submit this journal.
Motivation:
Constructive criticism and a thorough review of my work by this journal enabled a well planned revision thus facilitating publication of this research.