Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Current gene therapy is a good journal.
Motivation:
Oncogene is a very good journal in regards to scientific information. The journal handles the article very sincerely without any bias and the reviewers read the article very carefully. The time from submission to acceptance is also very reasonable but takes long to put on the pubmed. I would like to communicate my articles to this journal in future too.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally good taking into account that the paper was highly specialised. I feel that one of the proposed changes was unnecessary
Motivation:
In my experience it was a really fast process with excellent reviewers
Motivation:
Two weeks was a long time to wait for a reject without review decision.
Motivation:
After publishing in several other journals, the overall experience in working with JPC-C was eye-opening. Not only were the referee reports in total, as well as their criticism relevant (something that can sadly not be expected from certain other journals), but they also arrived fast. Interaction with the editing staff was flawless and uncomplicated.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.
Motivation:
The whole process went fast and smoothly. The comments from the reviewers were fair and constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process is very quick
Motivation:
In my opinion review process is good
Motivation:
I was very impressed by their way of editing, cooperation and consultation, they give solutions to any problem that I was having for example they asked whether I would rather pay for the color figures or put in black and white and gave me some similar histological figures with black and white to see IF I AGREE with that
The process was rather fast and the comments was valuable and realistic
Such a respectful journal
The process was rather fast and the comments was valuable and realistic
Such a respectful journal
Motivation:
In the first submission (not reported here) the first editor handled the manuscript made his/her decision to reject our paper trusting only on one of the 3 reviewers' comments. I replied to the editor that her/his way to handle the review process was not the rigth way (I'm editor too) and I explained why he/she could not trust just on the comment of one reviewer who did not support his/her remarks with scentific literature references. Finally, the editorial staff made the decision to change handling reviewer and riconsider our manuscript for possible publication. This time the paper was sent to 4 new reviewers and accepted for publication after major revisions.
Motivation:
The review report was comprehensive. This allowed me to address the issues with the paper and so my experience was very positive with the review process.
Once, I addressed the issues the manuscript was accepted. I was very pleased with how the editor dealt with the whole review process.
Once, I addressed the issues the manuscript was accepted. I was very pleased with how the editor dealt with the whole review process.
Motivation:
In their comments, the reviewers demonstrated that they know the topic and latest tendencies in the research very well. All the comments were well-formulated, up-to-the-point and constructive.
Motivation:
The review process was very quick, much quicker than we had expected. The reviewers had a broad perspective on the issue and their comments allowed us to elaborate the paper.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall, the review process was challenging but worthwhile. It helped to polish the final manuscript.
Motivation:
The processing and review processes were prompt as also the Editor-in-Chief's decision.