Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Everything was promptly, professionally. The article appeared in Scopus quickly labeled as "in press". But the administration of my university did not register the article as published until the output of a hard copy. Thus, the publication process took about 10 months.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was ok, although they were not very detailed. All in all, the whole process took much too long, it appeared that the editor was very slow in dealing with the submission.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. The review was reasonably detailed.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled very quickly. Two reviewers, reasonable quality of review reports.
Motivation:
Sensible reviewer choice and thoughtful editor, not a handling robot.
Motivation:
excellent review process
Motivation:
I appreciated the professionally of the overall process and the attempt top increase the quality of the research published on it
Motivation:
It helped us to express our findings better.
Motivation:
The first referee report suffered a significant delay (7 months). After the re-submission of my paper, the process was quick and efficient.
Motivation:
The first referee report suffered a significant delay (6.5 months). I was told there was a change in the editorial team in the meantime. After the re-submission of my paper, the process was quick and efficient.
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.