Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
39.1 weeks
41.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The impression left on me by this review process was mixed. The duration between the first submission and the first reviews was extremely long (9 months) but, once I sent the revisions, the paper was accepted two weeks after, which was a pleasant surprise. Concerning the quality of the reviews, it was also mixed : one of them was very good, bringing welcome insights, another focused only on form and had nothing of substance to contribute but was a fair assessment, while the last one read like a rant written by someone who was not familiar with the subject at hand.
Motivation:
My experience with the review process for this journal was very pleasant. I received helpful feedback in a timely manner that ultimately improved the final version of the accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
In this case, it went on well. In another manuscript, reviewing time went more than 20 weeks.
Motivation:
I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.
Motivation:
Nature set a record in my lab by rejecting our paper in under 3 hours. I sincerely doubt that the editor carefully considered whether to send our paper out to review.
Motivation:
At the time eLife was billing a fast turnaround time and I didn't get that. The office were good about communicating with me about the delays in reviewing the paper. Overall the review process was great. The reports were synthesized into a sensible decision letter, moreover the reviews are published online at this journal.
Motivation:
Fast turn around between submission, approval and publication.
Motivation:
This experience was revealed that choosing the experienced and efficient high scientific level reviewers is the key to make efficient reviewing process.
Motivation:
JCB has an academic Ed Board. The Editor who handled my paper did a great job. We had two positive reviews and one negative one. The Editor gave us clear guidance on what we needed to do to revise our paper. This included instructions to ignore the negative reviewer. Overall the process was fair, balanced and I will submit more work there.
Motivation:
First, make sure your expression and discussion concise and precise.
Second, introduce your experiments or models, the more detailed the better.
Last but not least, the papers with innovation are encouraged.
Second, introduce your experiments or models, the more detailed the better.
Last but not least, the papers with innovation are encouraged.
Motivation:
It was fast and smooth process.
Motivation:
Fast and smooth process