Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very quick review process. One of the reviews I got was very helpful. The other one was very positive and easy to address, but not that helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
The bad rating for the way the manuscript was handled reflects the actual reviewer's comments, which were inflammatory and insulting, but not the way the editor in chief handled the case, which was very good. We received an initial rejection based on gross misinterpretation of our data, combined with prejudice and ignorance on the side of the reviewers. When we pointed this out to the editor in chief, he agreed with us and overruled the external reviewer's negative recommendations and went on to accept the paper. In this case, we were lucky that the editor in chief was knowledgeable on the subject and intervened. Bad and prejudiced reviews would otherwise have blocked publication, which would unfortunately not have been the first time.
Motivation:
The reviewing process in TSF, as well as in other Elsevier journal, is organised fairly well, though sometimes it takes a rather long time.
Motivation:
I was simple
Motivation:
While most comments received were fair and relevant, a few seemed to show that the reviewer was not familiar with the area or were very trivial and would be picked up during routine editing (full stop missing in reference list)
Motivation:
The review process was fast, it took less than month and submission and article tracking system was perfect
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and efficient.
I was impressed with the quality of the reviews and the feedback form the editor.
I was impressed with the quality of the reviews and the feedback form the editor.
Motivation:
I was appalled with the lack of review before reject at the journal. When I appealled the rejection-without-review I received this comment:
"Thank you for your emails. This is to inform you that you have not received a response to your email because Prof. Albertsson is out of the office traveling this week and will be back next week.
"
It seems that the editor did not reject the article, her editorial assistant did, on the basis that " this is an extended investigation of your earlier work"! This type of unsubstantiated rejection that you sent us calls the entire review process into question.
"Thank you for your emails. This is to inform you that you have not received a response to your email because Prof. Albertsson is out of the office traveling this week and will be back next week.
"
It seems that the editor did not reject the article, her editorial assistant did, on the basis that " this is an extended investigation of your earlier work"! This type of unsubstantiated rejection that you sent us calls the entire review process into question.
Motivation:
It is very important for me when I revised a manuscript: a) Concise and clear Objective , b) Adequate Design and Methodological Methods (devices, error of measure of it, Statistical methods...), c) Clinical relevance, (new aspects, that supposes, conclusions of manuscript in clinical aspects).
Motivation:
The review was extensive and thorough. Itr challenged us to revise our discussion, being more critical and theoretical regarding our findings and conclusions. the published paper was much better for it.
Motivation:
The review process was not too long and the observations of the reviwers were useful for improving the quality of the paper
Motivation:
Wonderful process.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous, the editor and the editorial staff were professional, courteous and very responsive. The editor was very clear in the expectations throughout, and played an active role in the process. Overall the review and editorial process was very stringent, but also transparent and overall constructive and balanced. The process improved our manuscript, which has been very well received since publication.
Motivation:
The review process was professional and the review duration was acceptable.
Motivation:
All three reviews were positive and constructive. In an ideal world, I would have revised the paper, but it overlapped with my very busy time. The editorial office was firm with the deadline, so I decided to take the comments that were easily addressable, and submit the paper to a different journal.
Motivation:
After the editor issued "accept", s/he sent it back to the reviewers, although it took them only a week to get back to us and issued a final definite "accept". The journal is housed in a small editorial office, so they sent us a Word template file, and we were responsible for creating a final draft.
Motivation:
One reviewer's comment was very vague and difficult to address. The editor did not give us clear directions about how to address that comment.
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.