Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It took more than 40 weeks to get comments on the revision (plus 30 weeks for an initial decision).
Motivation:
The reviewer reports were quite different in tone and in the revisions that were requested. Initial decision took way too long.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The Peer Review System of Clinical Anatomy is one of the best in the filed
3.6 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I am completely satisfied by the peer review process at Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B. The team of Editorial Office is very polite and quickly responds to any inquire (as rule at the next day). The reviews in my case were objective and thoughtful.
Motivation:
The review process was quite drawn out and protracted because only one of the three original reviewers responded to the revised submission, meaning a fourth (new) reviewer had to be found. The Journal apologised for this delay and handled the matter professionally as possible considering the circumstances.
Motivation:
They were very quick and give good feedback to improve the paper.
Motivation:
I am quite proud of this article. It was written by the first author, who was a doctoral student that I mentored for his PhD. The editor of the journal had difficulty finding suitable peer reviewers, as this was a proposed model for occupational therapy that had not been adequately researched. I look forward to more publications about the first author's dissertation research and his continued future research to generate more research in the field of occupational therapy.
Motivation:
The time and and quality of the process were reasonable.
Motivation:
I think the review process was adequate and fast enough. I consider the process was appropriate and well managed.
Motivation:
The review process of the Algal Research Journal was very good to make the manuscript transparent for publication
Motivation:
very insightful feedback on behalf of the reviewers
Motivation:
the first review process was very slow
Motivation:
the editorial process was serious and efficient
the editorial process was serious and efficient
Motivation:
A revision making by external reviewers helps to improve greatly your manuscript. What happens is that sometimes it is a long and cumbersome process because like happened to me, my manuscript was sent to 2 reviewers, which I answered all of their requirements. Later, they sent the manuscript to a third reviewer that made me more requirements. I.e., when I thought the process was over, it began again. The manuscript improved a lot, but it took a very long time.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. One of the reviews I got was very helpful. The other one was very positive and easy to address, but not that helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
The bad rating for the way the manuscript was handled reflects the actual reviewer's comments, which were inflammatory and insulting, but not the way the editor in chief handled the case, which was very good. We received an initial rejection based on gross misinterpretation of our data, combined with prejudice and ignorance on the side of the reviewers. When we pointed this out to the editor in chief, he agreed with us and overruled the external reviewer's negative recommendations and went on to accept the paper. In this case, we were lucky that the editor in chief was knowledgeable on the subject and intervened. Bad and prejudiced reviews would otherwise have blocked publication, which would unfortunately not have been the first time.
Motivation:
The reviewing process in TSF, as well as in other Elsevier journal, is organised fairly well, though sometimes it takes a rather long time.