Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No reasons for desk reject except for "fit"; it took the editor more than 30 days to come to that decision
10.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After 5 1/2 months in submission the paper had not even been sent to reviewers. On contacting them the publishers said there was a considerable backlog following 'editorial restructuring' and that they couldn't predict a review time. Messages sent to the editorial team received no reply at all... As I wanted my research reported this year I withdrew the paper and resubmitted to another journal. Health Policy is a quality journal, but it's clearly having difficulties at the present time and I would think twice about submitting any time critical papers to them
Motivation:
Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.
Motivation:
Fast handling by the editors and reviewers. The reviewers were familiar wtih the topic.
Motivation:
Journal follows somewhat unorthodox and quite extensive style guidelines, which have to be adhered to before a manuscript is considered.
Motivation:
Experience was very pleasing. Even though the initial requirements (all figures in *.eps format etc) were painful the speed of the review process and handling by the editor were excellent.
Motivation:
The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and correct and based on the comments the manuscripts was greatly improved.
Motivation:
The manuscript should have been sent out for external assessment. Obviously the editor believes the readership will not benefit from the contents. I have experienced this before and the article is now a "highly cited" (405 citations to date) in the area.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled very well by this journal. The review process was quite quick and the reviewer's comments were of a high standard, and fair. After addressing the comments the quality of my manuscript was greatly improved. I would recommend this journal without reservation.
Motivation:
The editors obviously did not read the paper but only relied upon external reports. One report completely ignored what I said the paper was about and based his comments on his own participation in conferences whose proceedings were not published. I said the paper was about commercialized agriculture, the reviewer wanted to talk about food subsistence. That said, the report said the paper was well-written and scholarly. The main shortcoming was that I did not take account of his own work and point of view (which was unpublished). The second reviewer's comments were completely out of touch with reality and made no sense. I previously had published a dozen or so articles in this journal since 1992, but the editor and perhaps editorial board have changed recently.
Motivation:
This is a good journal. The Editor and reviews are very good.
Motivation:
GEC kept me well-informed throughout the review process - I was constantly getting emails about the status of the manuscript and I felt that the review process was timely. Two minor points to add however. First, I would have liked to have known at the outset whether or not it had been sent out for review as there's quite a long wait at that point where you're not sure whether it's been immediately rejected or not. Second, I also tried and failed to get advance warning of final publication so that my institute could do some PR, but despite emails requesting notice, that didn't happen - I just got an email saying it was published already.
Motivation:
Manuscript rejected without explanation despite clear relevance. Very disappointed with the process. Contacted the editors politely and got a disdainful response.
26.0 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Review process was relatively fast and thorough. Needed to convert the (accepted) paper from LaTeX to Word, but otherwise went well.
Motivation:
A paper that was clearly fit for the journal was rejected without review and with a generic email stating that it might be because of 3 reasons, none of which apply to the paper.