Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
10.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Very kind editor giving fast responses.
Motivation:
The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.
Motivation:
I felt that waiting 3 months before being informed that the journal could not find reviewers for my paper was slower than necessary.
Motivation:
The editor of our manuscript was responsive and easy to communicate with. However, our paper only received 1 review, which was fairly minimal.
Motivation:
The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.
9.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
7.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.
20.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
0.4 weeks
0.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The anonymous peer reviewers selected by this journal are professionals who are familiar with my research topics.
Motivation:
Very fast review procedure
Motivation:
Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
Motivation:
We acquired constructive comments from three reviewers and the process was fast.
3.9 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
-the revision duration was correct
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
Motivation:
The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
Motivation:
Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
Some reviews in favor and some against it. The quality of review comment were not upto the mark as expected. It seemed that some reviewer have not even read the manuscript and just have given their review by primary quick view.