Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast review process
5.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was quick, and the reviewers comments improved the manuscript considerably.
Motivation:
I think APJM is a suitable place to submit your studies related to the management issues in emerging markets
Motivation:
"Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems" is one of the leading journals in the field of fuzzy set theory. That's great.
Motivation:
This was the second time I submitted a paper to this journal and, as the first time, I was impressed with the efficiency of the review process.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews; the paper improved after the suggested changes; extremely efficient editorial processing
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was positive, but the time it took to get an initial answer (7 months) was very long
Motivation:
Some reviewers made pertinent and helpful comments, but others did not and made comments which suggested they failed to understand the message of the paper. A better choice of reviewers would have helped. However, the editor proved to be very competent in dealing with the reviews and the changes made to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Well chosen reviewers, good feedback overall, and very comptently conducted editorial process
Motivation:
Despite the quality of the reviews, it took extremely long to get even a first decision.
Motivation:
I have two papers accepted in Pattern Recognition and, in my opinion, it is a great journal. I have two more papers being revised in this journal and I really recommend it.
Motivation:
Very good journal!
Motivation:
Frontiers provides authors chance to direct to interact with the reviewer, which is sometime quite useful.
Motivation:
Editor had a really good read of the paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
the general J. Serb. Chem.Soc. is good with quality of publications. It has a regrious peer review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.
Motivation:
The first reviewer (who rejected the paper) wrote exactly one sentence. It is really hard to grasp why the paper was rejected from such a short information.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.