Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviews from this journal although takes long are very constructive
Motivation:
As soon as the comments by the reviewers were addressed to then the manuscript was accepted
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and then one of the reviewers suggested rejection because of many minor issues. Comments are to the point and will help strengthen the paper.
Motivation:
All the reviews were aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and fast
Motivation:
The review process and publication with Elsevier was outstanding.
Motivation:
although it took some time, but the reviewers were very accurate, and the review process was smooth and justified.
Motivation:
I had a very positive and productive interaction with the editorial office, especially with the processing of figures
Motivation:
I took reviewers comments very positively and these were genuine in order to improve the manuscript. I appreciate journal policy and editor's response in this regards, and publishing team also was very helpful
Motivation:
Very swift response and good reviewers
Motivation:
In this specific occasion, reviewing process was very fast but a little bit less accurate than usual, according to my previous experience with the same journal. However, proof editing and all associated editorial services respected a high standard.
Motivation:
Manuscript did not get a positive review because of the interest conflict. Now we have got two negative reviews both from one reviewer. We have sent letter to Editor-in-Chief to get review from other reviewer. We have several successful cases of our manuscripts published in that Journal. That is a single interpersonal conflict. We hope to get a positive review.
Motivation:
I think not providing a single reason for rejection is unacceptable. Apparently the decision was based on "inner circle referees" and made in a physical meeting, so no reports available.
Motivation:
Generaly the review process was fast. Both Reviewers had minor comments. After revised manuscript Editor-in-chief gave possitive note and accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
I fully satisfied by the review process
Motivation:
There was an original paper, new lattice gas system, completely new results with exact theory, the results were perfectly confirmed by the MC simulations. The referees really cant put forward any critical remarks.