Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I got a courtesy mail after 3.5 months because the review took longer than anticipated. The reviews were quite substantial.
Motivation:
Inquiries about manuscript status are not answered. The journal sends back a manuscript a year later saying it is not fit because they did not find reviewers. No other reason given.
Motivation:
We did not pay for fast track publication, however, we were pleased with the speed of review. Further, the reviewers' comments were useful, and, we believe, resulted in an improved manuscript.
Motivation:
I am impressed by the rapid response of the OAMaced.J.Med.Sci. ,the excellent reviewing of the paper with valuable comments, rapid decision of acceptance after revising and resubmitting of our paper.
Motivation:
This is the fastest journal and I got a reply to every questions I had at every instance of the review process. The editorial team also did a great job,.
8.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was rejection based on the fact that it did not fit enough within the journal objectives. The rejection came very fast, and they even suggested other journals that we could submit the article with.
10.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
In-depth reviews and a relatively fast process. Great communication from the editor.
7.0 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Efficient process with reasonable reviews that have improved the paper.
Motivation:
It is unacceptable to have a paper under review for almost 10 months with no response as to when a decision might be expected.
Motivation:
Qualified refree reports.
Motivation:
Mixed feelings about the process. Most of the review reports were thorough and have certainly helped us to improve the paper. They were critical and at the same time quite positive and down-to-earth, which leaves little to be desired. On the other hand, there was one persistent reviewer whose comments were not appropriate, and the editor did not recognise this and stepped in, as we think he should have. Further, another con is the lack of communication with the editor (no reply on two emails after enquiries about reason behind the long delay).
Motivation:
Fifteen weeks after receiving the manuscript the reviewer said us that, as part of this work was presented in a Conference and accesible in pdf, they couldn't publish it. We pointed out that the manuscript sent to the journal had much more work, so they decided to continue the revision process.
Motivation:
The delay in revising the manuscript was because they lost or misplaced it. If I hadn't sent them an e-mail asking for the final decision, they wouldn't have noticed that the document was misplaced.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected and I disagreed with some of the criticisms, I felt the reviews were thoughtful and thorough. Ultimately, the manuscript was rejected based on the associate editor's opinion that it the impact of the results wasn't substantial enough for this journal.
Motivation:
Editor rejected manuscript based on a subjective opinion of methodological issues with study without consulting reviewers. I previously submitted the manuscript to another journal, and none of the reviewers had the issue on which the editor based his decision. Editor claimed that length of time to render decision was due to a missing associate editor.
Motivation:
The journal should be applauded for offering (1) a fast review process, (2) useful editorial comments and (3) seemingly knowledgeable reviewers (3 out of 4 reviews were well-developed).
However, core arguments used to explain the rejection decision breathed an air of "discipline-related politics" rather than a focus on true shortcomings in terms of technical merit, craftsmanship and significance (Schwab, 1985). Surely, various other comments were wholly justified, however, the manuscript partly fell victim to an ongoing debate about the position of economic geography relative to related disciplines. In that respect, the manuscript turned out not to fit the journal's scope after all.
In sum, I strongly recommend authors to submit to this journal when their papers fit within a strictly spatial perspective on economic geography. You will get good quality reviews and fast decision-making. In contrast, manuscripts with a focus on relational economic geography are better submitted elsewhere.
However, core arguments used to explain the rejection decision breathed an air of "discipline-related politics" rather than a focus on true shortcomings in terms of technical merit, craftsmanship and significance (Schwab, 1985). Surely, various other comments were wholly justified, however, the manuscript partly fell victim to an ongoing debate about the position of economic geography relative to related disciplines. In that respect, the manuscript turned out not to fit the journal's scope after all.
In sum, I strongly recommend authors to submit to this journal when their papers fit within a strictly spatial perspective on economic geography. You will get good quality reviews and fast decision-making. In contrast, manuscripts with a focus on relational economic geography are better submitted elsewhere.
Motivation:
I only selected revise & resubmit to continue with this review. I never received any review or accept/reject decision from the editor. I contacted the editor numerous times over a 2 year period, and was informed that the reviews would be forthcoming very soon. I finally withdrew my manuscript for consideration after 2 years and submitted the manuscript elsewhere. Very disappointing and unprofessional process after paying a $150 fee.
Motivation:
Fast processing time, but rather poor quality reviews. We only received superficial comments that only marginally improved the contents of the paper.
Motivation:
The problem with this journal is the costy article charge fees around 870 euro as it is an open access journal
Motivation:
Barely a paragrapgh of review provided, review indicated that multivariate analyses were not performed when they clearly were. Severe delays in handling manuscript and sending out for review. No response from journal about progress
Motivation:
One clearly positive review with the number of suggestions to strenghen the manuscript, one "too specialized" comment. No invitation to resubmit the paper after implementing changes, requested by first referee.
Motivation:
After 20 weeks the editor let us know that they read our article with much interest but decided not to retain it for publication.
Motivation:
The review process was very long, we had to send 3-4 emails to the journal before getting an answer about the status.
Then, eventually, the review comments (and rejection) were mostly unmotivated. Except few constructive critics and remarks, the main motivation for rejection was "not enough numerical tests", "do not see usefulness of the method". In these cases, reviewers should ask for more tests/explanation. Altogether, it seemed that reviewers were not completely familiar with the topic.
Then, eventually, the review comments (and rejection) were mostly unmotivated. Except few constructive critics and remarks, the main motivation for rejection was "not enough numerical tests", "do not see usefulness of the method". In these cases, reviewers should ask for more tests/explanation. Altogether, it seemed that reviewers were not completely familiar with the topic.
Motivation:
Although the decision after first submission took quite long, the reviewer comments were very thorough and constructive, justifying, to some extent, the long time it took to get to the first decision. Subsequent decisions were made in an acceptable time frame. The editor took on an active role in the review process and clearly read the paper and reviewer comments properly.
Motivation:
Two of the three reviewers had only minor comments to improve the manuscript while one reviewer had a problem with one aspect of our work. After two rounds of revision and three rounds of review, all but one reviewer was satisfied with how we addressed their concerns, including that of the other reviewer. The editor finally rejected our manuscript because he/she was apparently unable to accept a manuscript if all reviewers were not in agreement. We felt the editor was very passive in the review process and could have avoided a lot of time spent revising and reviewing the manuscript if he/she had overruled a clearly unreasonable reviewer, or rejected the manuscript earlier recognizing that one of the reviewers was not going to be convinced by any changes that we made.
Motivation:
I believe that one of the reviews was quite unfair in the way that one of the main criticism could be applied to a wide range of papers, including those already published in the journal itself. However, the editors decided to favour the rather unfair biased review rather than the other positive one.