Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
- too long time to revise the manuscript
Motivation:
I am content with the review process. The only remark I have is that after my manuscript was accepted for publication I had to wait for it 3 or 4 months.
Motivation:
- I appreciated the review process and feedback. Very professional and organized.
Motivation:
“I’m thankful and satisfied with the attention you had for me and the feedback you gave me to publish my article. I have commented this with my colleagues and I wish to continue publishing with you.”
Motivation:
The review process was good.
Motivation:
A solid journal with great reviewer system
Motivation:
Avery nice and solid journal with great review system
Motivation:
A top journal with great review system
Motivation:
I first approached the CMJ editor in 2010 about a 25-year retrospective of the importance of the Systems Concepts Digital Synthesizer project at Stanford. It turned into two articles plus a review that were all published together in the Fall 2013 issue. One article discussed the architecture of the Synthesizer, one the research project surrounding it, and the review focused on some of the music composed using it. Thus, this was a very big project with lots of technical and historical details to get right, and it took years to complete. The CMJ editorial staff was superb throughout; very supportive, with many valuable suggestions, responsive to my concerns, balanced and light with their editorial pens. A very enjoyable experience. They have my highest respect.
Motivation:
This is a nice journal with great reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process for Cultural Sociology was great; really, it was an example of how the peer review process should function. The timelines were reasonable (9.5 months from first submission to acceptance after revisions, less than 1 year from submission to online publication), and the editor solicited excellent reviews. The reviewers' comments and suggestions really helped me improve the manuscript; they really engaged with my work, and their comments focused on helping me frame and draw out the most important conceptual issues. In fact, the editors comments seemed to suggest that I should make fairly minimal revisions, but I ended up doing more revision than was actually asked for, because a couple of suggestions in the reviews really inspired me. In the end, the paper was much better for having gone through the review process (and how often can we truly say that?).
Motivation:
Though, the review process made my paper an improved one, but the process took a lot of time.
Motivation:
Despite of a quite long waiting time for getting the first decision, the review process went quite well. The editor assigned a competent reviewers from which we get constructive and valuable feedback that focus on improving the scientific quality and the clarity of the article
Motivation:
The process is quite fast and editor give a clear answer and reasoning.
Motivation:
Excellent Journal and very good review process
Motivation:
I felt tha the review process improved my paper, there was some external views on the data I'd not considered and the manuscript was improved when a couple of small errors was highlighted. The editorial team worked hard and therer was a quick turn around. The paper was accepted and is now available to be read and downloaded.
Motivation:
The handling editor stated that the review process was long (~5 months) because one reviewer could not do the review and he had to find another reviewer. Additionally, one reviewer had generally constructive comments, but felt the need to insult the authors. These comments should have been censored by the editor.
Motivation:
The review process was relatively efficient and we received good and thorough reviews.