Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
Motivation:
Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
Fast procedure
Motivation:
The review process is fast and in depth.
Motivation:
I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
Motivation:
The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.
Motivation:
The duration of the whole process could have been shorter but as such went very well and reasonably fast.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.
Motivation:
There was a delay in publication process after final acceptance
Motivation:
Fantastic efficiency and good peer review comments
Motivation:
The paper was immediately rejected because it was considered as out of scope of the journal. The positive things are the nicest submission system I've seen, and the impressively quick reaction by the editors (it took them just a few hours to reply). However, I wrote a rebuttal that the journal lists that topic in their scope, and I cited several similar papers that were published in journals of similar scope. I have never received a response, so my experience is mixed.
Motivation:
The second round review took long time. One of the reviewer was very gifty and gaved wrong remarks. I have wasted a lot of time and review rounds clarifying this reviewer about the wrong statements he has. This reviewer took long time to respond since the first reviewer was already satisfied.
Motivation:
First review outcome took a long time. However the article was submitted to a special issue.
Motivation:
The editor declared that there were not enough reviewers in the scientific community to assess all the papers submitted. Therefore, the editors could arbitrarily chose to reject papers without asking for the opinion of specialist reviewers. In this case the editor was clearly wrong since the paper was accepted a few months later by another very respectable journal.
56.3 weeks
61.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted