Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Frontiers provides authors chance to direct to interact with the reviewer, which is sometime quite useful.
Motivation:
Editor had a really good read of the paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
She really persisted with it and resulted in a better paper.
2.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
the general J. Serb. Chem.Soc. is good with quality of publications. It has a regrious peer review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.
Further this is good way of scirev to formulate such questionnaire which is important for scientific society and speeding the review process.
Motivation:
The first reviewer (who rejected the paper) wrote exactly one sentence. It is really hard to grasp why the paper was rejected from such a short information.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.
Motivation:
The review process eventually helped to improve the quality of the paper, but not all comments were necessarily benign and constructive.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled by the journal in a very professional manner.
Motivation:
It took about 3 month to get first decision, which was a little long
Motivation:
The journal was not able to provide any updates during the 30 weeks the manuscript was under review. The review process seemed quite slow considering they claim to have a shorter review time than many other journals and have rolling online publication. The comments from the reviewer were helpful and the manuscript was accepted. The editor was easy to work with. I would consider using again, but don't expect an expedited process despite the online rolling publication.
Motivation:
Thorough review reports. Long wait until first review results.