Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This was faster than previous experiences with JEMS, and we were given a chance to revise the paper despite one rather critical reviewer. The work we put into the revision paid out, though.
Motivation:
Theoretical papers are sent to referees who are experts in experiment and vice versa. Referee reports are not logical with respect to the content of the manuscript and mostly motivated by the own ideas of the referees.
Motivation:
Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviews were very short (97 words together), very general (e.g. #1: "It is very descriptive and low in interest for the audience"; #2: "There is little scientific aspect in the paper") and not supported with any clear reference to the text. If I would not have been a seasoned author, for example a PhD candidate, I would have been disincentivized.
Motivation:
The Editor suggested, in a relevant way, a different kind of journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers brought out the salient information and critique that made the paper stand out
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was very good. The review process has improved my paper a lot. However, in may opinion, the review process could be a little bit faster.
Motivation:
Sometime review comments are not improving quality of paper and some questions are really ridiculous
Immediately accepted after 30.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The review process of this journal is quiet fast.
Motivation:
N/A
Motivation:
Very inefficient editorial handling. It took over 4 months for the Editor to realise that one of the reviewers had not provided the review and another 2 months for them to find another reviewer. Never replied to emails.
Motivation:
Excellent, timely editorial handling. Very constructive reviews from experts in the field.
Motivation:
The first round of revisions really improved the paper. This was enough to satisfy reviewer 1, but insufficient for reviewer 2. The critique of the latter was quite external. Unfortunately the reviewer sided with reviewer 2.
Motivation:
Highly professional and serious editor and reviewers. Good and useful evaluation by reviewers. I recommend publishing in the journal.
Motivation:
The whole review process was quick, relevant and objective
Motivation:
Reviews were good, but whole process took considerable time.
Motivation:
The editor had apparently not even read the paper, and provided completely irrelevant feedback (for instance, she wanted us to address issues with using a sample of participants from outside of the US, when in fact the study was on media representations and did not include participant data at all). The reviews were also not attached to the decision letter. When I emailed for confirmation, the editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said her critique was still valid (???!!). Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with with the bizarre requests made by the editor. Several weeks after the correspondence with the editor, we received the actual reviews, which were actually positive.
Motivation:
It was not bad but the comments of reviewers was not very important and we managed them quickly.Bur publication took longer than reviewing procass.
Motivation:
We received three reviews, which we addressed in a revision, and the editor said she would send the paper back to one of the original reviewers and no new reviewers, but instead sent it to one original reviewer and two new reviewers. The first round took way too long, but apparently they had issues finding reviewers. I feel the editor should have just accepted the paper after the first round, since the second round didn't contribute much--two of the three reviewers in the second round recommended acceptance, and the other new reviewer made some odd comments based on lack of understanding of the (common) statistical technique we used.