Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It takes too long time, and editors explanation was insufficient for rejection.
Motivation:
Took far too long to respond. This significantly wasted the authors' time in an arena where research is supposed to be cutting edge. I also thought the reviews were quite narrow-minded in not understanding the benefits of publishing research that was primarily developmental and involved pilot studies, and therefore had interesting developments but was not statistically perfect because of the difficulties involved.
Motivation:
Although the submitted manuscript seems to fit the topic areas for the journal, the editor decided otherwise. I find it very annoying that it took nearly 8 weeks for the editor to reach that conclusion.
Motivation:
Most of the comments of the reviewers were solid and useful. It took two weeks before the subject editor made a decision based on the reviewer comments. However, an aditional review report was added by the subject editor.
Motivation:
The time under review was unacceptably long. Two reviewers actually reviewed the paper, one gave no feedback and the third stated it was a good paper.
Motivation:
We were satisfied that, after the disappointing first round of review (only one brief review), the revised manuscript was sent to two new reviewers who came up with more substantial criticism than the first reviewer had done. After acceptance, SAGE Open really did a lot of work on proofreading and correcting the manuscript (esp. the references section). Unfortunately, the whole process took a lot of time.
Motivation:
The review period took over the stated period of time for both submissions (nearly 4 months). The editor requested changes (that we made) but did not tell us exactly what he wanted to have done and when we submitted it he then rejected because it wasn't the exact/analysis comparison he thought should have been completed. We could have revised those sections but he chose not to give us the opportunity. This was in light of very positive reviews on the first round of submission and that we were able to publish it in an equivalent (or better) journal after the process. I have papers in a number of high impact journals of this caliber (Child Development) and the process here was the worst I have experienced.
Motivation:
Review reports were really good and they significantly improved the manuscript, but the review process was too long (a lot of time between submissions and editor decisions).
Motivation:
The quick turn around time and thoughtful and concise feedback made the experience with submission the JMIR painless.
Motivation:
The editor answered very fast (on Sundays!) after the first submission. Reviewers' comments were helpful and the revised article was accepted within 3 days (at Christmas time, on Dec 25th!). I would recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The editor apparently "lost sight" of the manuscript. We asked about its status after 5 months, at which point he told us he had given up on finding a second reviewer but would be making a last effort towards this aim. Two months later, we received referee reports advising rejection. The first report focus on the organization of the paper sums up to saying "this is not the way we do it in behavioral sciences" and the second sums up to saying "I do not understand what is a mixed logit model". Both reviewers were dogmatic in their rejection, one saying that the question we dealt with was not the traditional way to look at the specific phenomenon we investigated, the other suggesting he did not trust our "sophisticated econometrics".
Motivation:
The review process took very long - almost a year passed between submission and rejection. The critics which lead to rejection were merely mentioned in the first review round, and the efforts put into revising the paper seemed not be taken into account for the final decision. Therefore, the review process and outcome were quite frustrating. The paper was accepted in a journal with similar quality with minor revisions afterwards.
Motivation:
The entire review process went pretty fast. The reviewer comments were quite positive, and it was not too difficult to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
Motivation:
It took so long...
Motivation:
I found it unfair that when two reviewers recommend acceptance and one reviewer had a "mixed feeling", the journal decided to reject the paper outright. I was not given a chance to address the concern raised by the third reviewer.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were extremely positive. One reviewer raised one major concern, but the editor was quite explicit about how to address that question. Right after we followed that suggestion, the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
One reviewer rejected the paper because we did not cite a paper that is written in Japanese.
Motivation:
The situation was unfortunate but understandable. I wished that the editor had informed us earlier about the situation so that we did not have to waste three weeks.
Motivation:
The associate editor handled the submission really well. It was slightly frustrating that the editor-in-chief took their time (about two-months) to put a final stamp on the paper, after the associate editor issued acceptance.