Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Rather slow editorial and review process
Motivation:
Very fast and overall very good, though one of the three reviews was sent in a few days later than the first two reviews.
Motivation:
In overall the time-lapse between submission and final acceptance was fair. Reviewers were professional on their answers and looked scientifically aware of the possible caveats of our work.
Motivation:
It was a bit long have the criticisms of the reviewers
6.5 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Based on my experience, IJGIS journal is very good and fast in giving the initial decision of the first round of review, whether the article is accepted or not. This is very important. In addition, the received comments where scientifically valid and important in order to improve the article. The duration for second round of revision was also acceptable. I personally believe this journal is one of the bests in the domain of GIS.
Motivation:
The editor is very helpful
Motivation:
I believe the reviewers' comments were constructive in improving the quality of my manuscript. However, the whole process, especially the first round of review took too long. I was glad that they hurried up to publish it by the end of the year, though.
Motivation:
The review process was rapid. Some of the comments I received were difficult to handle and sometimes contradictory. I would have like the opinion of the editor on some of those "conflicting" comments. However, I had plenty of time to review the manuscript and resubmit it.
Motivation:
A relatively painless process was provided by CMI; the reviewers were obviously experts in the field in which our research sat, and provided insightful comments to improve the manuscript. This was all accomplished in a suitable (6 week) timescale.
Motivation:
Process was long and drawn out but got there in the end.
Motivation:
I think review process must be more quicker
Motivation:
This journal review process is very good.
Motivation:
I satisfied that editor's and reviewer's reaction was quite fast from the manuscript sent out to their first response,but I fell that their reaction was quite slow from my revised version resubmitted to they accepted the paper.
Motivation:
1. After I submit my paper, the current status was "submitted to journal" for one month
2. After I resubmit my paper, (the overall decision was a minor revise), the decision process was very long.
2. After I resubmit my paper, (the overall decision was a minor revise), the decision process was very long.
Motivation:
After the second round, the decision was "reject and resubmit". Then the reviewers have been changed and I received the new reports. Since the reviewers were not the same, the points suggested by the new reviewers are completely different.
Motivation:
Very fast and organized review process by the editorial office.
Motivation:
Prompt and appropriate response by the Editor, but poor work from the reviewers. Time from first submission to final acceptance (5.5 months) is too long and not really compatible with needs to spread scientific information.
Motivation:
About 2 months between first submission and final acceptance is a reasonable time, compatible with academic and scientific needs