Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I found the journal handled my manuscript in a fair way. The review process did not take too ling. The manuscript was sent to only one reviewer, but he gave very reasonable and competent comments that improved it significantly. The editor just mediated the communication between the authors and the reviewer, in a very formal but efficient way.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
Motivation:
I received three review reports very different from each other. One just corrected references and some typo mistakes. The second focused on just a secondary detail, even taken from another work, and stated that because that was controversial then the all work was to reject and our results were not reproducible. The third analyzed every single sentence of the manuscript, making a lot of very specific criticism but neglecting the entire sense. The editor just sticked to the comments of the second reviewer to motivate the rejection. I found it very unfair, especially the editor's behavior.
Motivation:
REVIEW PROCESS WAS LESS TIME PERIOD. REVIEW WAS EXCELLENT.
Motivation:
Fast review process
5.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was quick, and the reviewers comments improved the manuscript considerably.
Motivation:
I think APJM is a suitable place to submit your studies related to the management issues in emerging markets
Motivation:
"Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems" is one of the leading journals in the field of fuzzy set theory. That's great.
Motivation:
This was the second time I submitted a paper to this journal and, as the first time, I was impressed with the efficiency of the review process.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews; the paper improved after the suggested changes; extremely efficient editorial processing
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was positive, but the time it took to get an initial answer (7 months) was very long
Motivation:
Some reviewers made pertinent and helpful comments, but others did not and made comments which suggested they failed to understand the message of the paper. A better choice of reviewers would have helped. However, the editor proved to be very competent in dealing with the reviews and the changes made to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Well chosen reviewers, good feedback overall, and very comptently conducted editorial process
Motivation:
Despite the quality of the reviews, it took extremely long to get even a first decision.
Motivation:
I have two papers accepted in Pattern Recognition and, in my opinion, it is a great journal. I have two more papers being revised in this journal and I really recommend it.
Motivation:
Very good journal!
Motivation:
Frontiers provides authors chance to direct to interact with the reviewer, which is sometime quite useful.
Motivation:
Editor had a really good read of the paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
the general J. Serb. Chem.Soc. is good with quality of publications. It has a regrious peer review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.