Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!
Motivation:
Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
Motivation:
Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
Fast procedure
Motivation:
The review process is fast and in depth.
Motivation:
I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
Motivation:
The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.
Motivation:
The duration of the whole process could have been shorter but as such went very well and reasonably fast.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because it was deemed to species specific.
Motivation:
There was a delay in publication process after final acceptance
Motivation:
Fantastic efficiency and good peer review comments