Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Excellent revisions, but too much time passed from the first submission to the final acceptance of the manuscript.
7.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Usefull reviews and a quick revision process.
Motivation:
The comments of the first reviews took a few months. They included little of use. The editing of our article was excellent und asiduous.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, particularly for a journal that advertises a "fast publication schedule". I had to contact the editorial office on multiple occasions and was asked to provide additional suggestions for potential reviewers. Furthermore, it is clear that acceptance was very unlikely from the outset, as the editor ultimately rejected the basis of the study.
Motivation:
I was disappointed with the reviewers' comments. They liked the paper, but were not able/willing to give fundamental critique or suggestions which could improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Generally very good handling of the manuscript; first review report very good and instructive. Duration of second review round surprisingly long (10 weeks) given that the editor's decision after the first review round was "accept condition upon minor revisions".
Motivation:
Received 3 very helpful reviews in the first round, after major revisions finally accepted without further ado. Overall process was very fast and the editor was very professional. One of the best review experiences yet.
18.7 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very quick first assessment
Motivation:
Review process was very long, with no information.
Motivation:
No clear reason for rejection was provided.
Motivation:
While the comments from the reviewers were very good and helpful, the time it took to receive them was very long.
Motivation:
The ultimate decision seemed to stem from a skepticism of the existence of latent taxa. The associate editor (who did much of the reviewing) was convinced that we had dichotomized a continuous variable arbitrarily, when in fact we found two clusters using two-step cluster analysis. We provided literature that explained cluster analysis and contrasted taxometric methods against arbitrary splits, but all for naught. A statistical consultant was brought in to review and talked about William Stephenson's Q-technique. After consulting with our quantitative methods faculty, we are still not sure why. We had tested for moderation by cluster membership and the associate editor thought we should have tested for mediation instead, though the theory that drove our study was not consistent with mediation.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not seem to have sufficient expertise in the manuscript topic, but they provided correct reviews concentrating on the parts they understood. After submitting our responses to the first round of reviews, one reviewer stated that his comments were not addressed!? We resubmitted the same responses in the second round and then they were accepted by this reviewer. Two reviewers dropped out during the process and the editor added two additional reviewers after the first round.
Motivation:
One useful and constructive review plus comments from the editor who has clearly read the paper, too. The paper was conditionally accepted after the first round.
Motivation:
The rapid review system was excellent. The review process was efficient and rigorous and my paper was much improved as a result.
Motivation:
The submitted manuscript described a novel research not covered in any prior publications. The reviewers were clearly incompetent in this field and, without suggesting any relevant references, kept adding comments which showed poor understanding of the topic. We decided to withdraw the manuscript. The manuscript was published after 3 months in another Elsevier journal with similar impact factor as the Journal of Membrane Science.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were largely acceptable and improved the final publication version.
Speed of submission to review and acceptance was not longer than 1 month. If I had to criticise it was the length of time (up to 6 months post accetptance) for the online version to appear.
Speed of submission to review and acceptance was not longer than 1 month. If I had to criticise it was the length of time (up to 6 months post accetptance) for the online version to appear.
Motivation:
The reasons given were very general and poor after 9 months waiting for the revission