Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by a single editor with a very evasive rejection motive, 4 words: "more suitable for a specialized journal". Not even a word about what kind of "specialized journal" the editor is referring to.
Motivation:
The reviewers took a very long time to reject the paper. The article submitted was within the self-imposed criteria of Plos One. Only one reviewer objected entirely and sounded biases, yet the article was not send to a third reviewer to provide a fair review. The reviewer who objected wanted to have an entirely different study produced and did not really take any interest in what data was provided.
Motivation:
The editorial process and the choice of reviewers was very good. The reviewers were picky but fair. The editor seemed interested and always rather in favor of the authors. The editorial process post-acception was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
After an 8 month delay only very minor corrections were requested. These were made within 24 hours and the paper resubmitted. Nevertheless, it still took over 2 more months to get a further (acceptance) response.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.
Motivation:
The reviews were point full and improved the MS
Motivation:
The entire process went very quickly (though we did pay for Fast-Track) and relatively smoothly. I would have liked more feedback on what was going on during the review and re-review, but everything was completed within the promised time. Finally, I had some concerns with the quality of one of the reviews, but the editor appears to have addressed it.
Motivation:
Quick and "friendly" rejection. They suggested me to look for a more European journal. So, although the journal has published research with European cases, it is a US-journal, which is not too fond of EU-research.
Motivation:
Average handling of manuscript. The reasons for the rejection are stated clearly enough.
Motivation:
Excellent experience. Reviews of high quality, very good correspondence with the editorial team.
10.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The length of time for reviews was very long. I revised the manuscript following the advice of the first reviewers. One had accepted the manuscript with no changes, the other asked for revisions. But then the editors sent the manuscript out to new reviewers who raised other issues. At this point I think it would have been fair to have treated the manuscript as being a first submission and give me the opportunity to revise.
Motivation:
Jonathan Baron reviews all submissions very thoroughly before sending them out to reviewers or rejecting them. He gives great comments and puts a lot of effort into his work.
Motivation:
Overall the authors are satisfied with the review process. We would send our paper to EES again without any problems. We only had some doubts about the number of the reviewers; we received one review, but from the first editorial response we understood there were at least two. When we wrote to the Editor asking about the second review, we didn't receive any response, so we concluded there was only one reviewer. However, we'd prefer to get a response from the Editor. Beside this, we’d like to emphasise that our experience with EES Journal was very good and we appreciate their decision to publish our paper.
Motivation:
Although this a new journal my feel is that this will be become a high profile one. I say this from the overall quality of the papers, the projection in the general media and the new sub-jounals that have been recently generated. The website is also very well made.
In terms of the review process, the first round took a wile, but i think this is not the trend (i think they disclose the time it takes somewhere).
The big thing in terms of the review process that I really like and that I think is a major step forwards in the review process is that the reviewers and the editor discuss between themselves the paper before making a decision. They decide the value of the discovery and what additional exps need to be done in order to prove your point. As opposed to grumpy reviewers that send you a huje list of (mostly) stupid exps and issues that you spend a ton of time trying to address. I really think this is an example to other journals.
Overall I really recommended it. Even if your paper is rejected I think you should be able to get a relatively fast and fare evaluation of you manuscript.
In terms of the review process, the first round took a wile, but i think this is not the trend (i think they disclose the time it takes somewhere).
The big thing in terms of the review process that I really like and that I think is a major step forwards in the review process is that the reviewers and the editor discuss between themselves the paper before making a decision. They decide the value of the discovery and what additional exps need to be done in order to prove your point. As opposed to grumpy reviewers that send you a huje list of (mostly) stupid exps and issues that you spend a ton of time trying to address. I really think this is an example to other journals.
Overall I really recommended it. Even if your paper is rejected I think you should be able to get a relatively fast and fare evaluation of you manuscript.
Motivation:
Very thorough review, including comments from the editor and associate editor, which really improved the paper. The review period was a bit long however.
Motivation:
The review process took far too long for a rejection, and the reviewers did not gave much more information on improving the MS. It should not have taken so long. I will not consider this Journal for a future MS submission.
12.4 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted