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 professional, efficient and handled very well. The editor works with you to improve the manuscript for publication.
Motivation:
Relatively fast decision
Motivation:
The review was handled badly because I had to make multiple revisions, yet on every review the decision was 'minor revisions'. Even after very positive reviews and a 'minor revision' decision the manuscript was sent out to additional (new) reviewers. The changes I was asked to make after each review by the editor could have been made on the first round of review if they had all been brought up then. This led to much frustration and took up more time than necessary.
Motivation:
Unlike promises made by other new journals, eLife stood by their promises. The review process was fast, fair and transparent. This was by far the best review experience I have ever had, and that for a journal that has ambitions to rival the best. If you have a great paper, forget about PNAS or Nature Comm, send it to eLife!
Motivation:
This was an invited article. It had 3 favourable referee reviews and one grumpy one (who obviously disagreed with our views - see also http://dbkgroup.org/on-scientific-censorship-and-bitchiness/), and it was sent to this person who inevitably dug their heels in despite a detailed rebuttal. I sent a further rebuttal which eventually was looked at by 'senior editors' who clearly did not bother to read the detailed arguments at all - some of their comments were wrong. Consequently I consider this a joke journal and shan't be sending anything to them again, nor likely any of this stable's output. The ability of editors to censor science is disgusting (see above blog link). Authors put their names to papers; if stuff is wrong it will be pointed out, to authors' detriment. These editors hid under a cloak of anonymity, despite my request that they should identify themselves if they were going to have an intellectual argument. Clearly they were not interested in that, as the only communications I got were from the Office.
Motivation:
A fast, fair and high quality review process.
Motivation:
Review process was very fast. Critical points of the referees were understood and summarized, decision was in line with reports.
Referees clearly put some work into their reviews and added substantial value to the manuscript for resubmission at another journal.
Referees clearly put some work into their reviews and added substantial value to the manuscript for resubmission at another journal.
Motivation:
I chose the 'fast track' option that was available. This expedited the review process. The editor and the reviewers assessed my manuscript in a very efficient and yet thorough manner. The communication was all very clear throughout the process.
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The paper was rejected in its present form after significant criticism from the reviewers. The reviewers were however very thorough and provided very useful feedback. The journal also welcomed a new submission on the topic once all the issues were solved.
12.3 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The paper was accepted after two rounds of reviews. The reviews were thorough and very good. The communication with the editor was excellent.
7.0 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Excellent process with amazingly thorough reviews. Very impressed.
Motivation:
The review process was very quick and efficient. The reviewer's suggestions improved the quality of the manuscript immensely.
Motivation:
Very quick handling of resubmitted manuscript after we had thoroughly addressed reviewer comments.
Motivation:
The website suggested a processing time of 16 weeks, it took 38. The reviews were pretty good be considerably different in strength and the overall verdict was not clear given the different opinions of the reviewers.
Motivation:
Fair review reports, and fair duration for review. This journal is efficient and handles manuscripts in a proper way.
Motivation:
One review was very good, well reasoned and constructive. The other reviewer gave no comment at all and recommendet reject without giving any reasons. This should usually motivate editors to have a closer look.
Motivation:
I feel the reviewing process took way too long and although both reviewers were very enthousiastic about my manuscript, since they pointed out a lot of positive points and had only minor remarks, my manuscript was just bluntly rejected without offering me the opportunity to revise it. Although I think both reviewers were in favour of doing this (as they mentioned suggestions for revision in their comments).
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Providing a single reviewer opinion in 4.5 months seems to me highly inefficient. Otherwise the content of the review was fair.
Motivation:
The reviews were of high quality and always led to a significant improvement of the article. The editorial work was likewise excellent and very careful. The editors cared about the contents a lot, they didn't just function as "translators" of the reviewers' views.