Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The 1st review process was a little long, however the comments were constructive and just require some re-analysis of experiments already done. The work was improved by doing the suggestions of the three reviewers.
Motivation:
There was an issue with the assignment to reviewers: after a month from submission, the paper was not yet sent to reviewers. I emailed the journal manager, and she said she would check with the editor. After 20 day the paper was still "with editor" state, and not "under review". I emailed again the journal manager, and finally the paper was sent to reviewers.
There was another issue with the first review: there was no reviewer comments attached to the interim decision email, nor on the editorial manager web site. After another email, the reviewer comments appeared on the web site.
There was another issue with the first review: there was no reviewer comments attached to the interim decision email, nor on the editorial manager web site. After another email, the reviewer comments appeared on the web site.
Motivation:
First, there is no editorial manager web site, the paper should be submitted by email.
The first email received no answer. After 3 days with no answer, I wrote again, and they said they received no email from me. So I sent again the same email, and this time they received it.
Another problem was the long time it took to have an answer: I asked for information after almost 4 months, and they answered that there is still no information. After another 50 days I asked again, with no answer. I asked again after a week, still with no answer.
The first email received no answer. After 3 days with no answer, I wrote again, and they said they received no email from me. So I sent again the same email, and this time they received it.
Another problem was the long time it took to have an answer: I asked for information after almost 4 months, and they answered that there is still no information. After another 50 days I asked again, with no answer. I asked again after a week, still with no answer.
Motivation:
While negative, the answer was very quick.
Motivation:
Good.
Motivation:
The reviews were of a high quality, after the reviews were received the communication with the journal was very constructive and the final decision was made relatively fast.
Motivation:
The AE unreasonably asked for conducting another study while the reviewers did not ask for it. The AE was also not knowledgeable about the field.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was completely unaware of the field and method. The second reviewer had some knowledge but gave a wrong method comment which was one of the reasons for rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out several corrections to be made in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Besides, all data have been checked by the NIST, which showed the accuracy of the reviewing process.
Besides, all data have been checked by the NIST, which showed the accuracy of the reviewing process.
Motivation:
the review was very fast
Motivation:
The review process was fast and the reviewers comments were appropriate and sounding
39.1 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Cellular and Molecular Biology journal is a peer reviewed fair journal and publication was done in a good editing within a month
Motivation:
The reviewing process was relatively swift. However, the paper was 'pending editorial decision' for at least three months. Considering that both reviewers recommended publication and very minor corrections the whole process could have been much faster.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and comments received were fair.
Motivation:
Very consistent reviews which made the manuscript improve.
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It was a very pleasent correspondence
Motivation:
I found the journal handled my manuscript in a fair way. The review process did not take too ling. The manuscript was sent to only one reviewer, but he gave very reasonable and competent comments that improved it significantly. The editor just mediated the communication between the authors and the reviewer, in a very formal but efficient way.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
Motivation:
I received three review reports very different from each other. One just corrected references and some typo mistakes. The second focused on just a secondary detail, even taken from another work, and stated that because that was controversial then the all work was to reject and our results were not reproducible. The third analyzed every single sentence of the manuscript, making a lot of very specific criticism but neglecting the entire sense. The editor just sticked to the comments of the second reviewer to motivate the rejection. I found it very unfair, especially the editor's behavior.