Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One week after submission the status of the paper changed to 'Under review'. Two days later, however, the paper was rejected anyway.
Motivation:
Review was quick and of good quality
Motivation:
Interesting review that clearly improved the final manuscript.
Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers.
Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers.
Motivation:
It really took a bit long (almost a year) to get just one reviewer. The review was detailed, though.
Motivation:
Very constructive and useful reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.
The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.
The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
Motivation:
The review process was handled very well by the editorial assistant. The first-round review took very long, but upon inquiry the EA quickly replied with some more information about the reason for the delay. Overall, the process went quite smoothly.
Motivation:
The suggestions of the reviewers where interesting and adequated, I fully agree with them.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
Motivation:
The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.
Motivation:
The editorial process was a bit slow but apart from this the process went smoothly. The reviewers comments were very helpful and I would submit to this journal any time again.
Motivation:
Very good reviewers, speedy process, excellent handling. Reviewers comments really helped turning a manuscript with great potential but not sufficiently developed argument into one with coherent and clear message. Editor's work facilitated this.
Motivation:
The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
This paper was part of a special issue, so it explains part of the speed with which is was handled.
Motivation:
Overall good quality of reviews. Reasonable and correct criticism and some positive remarks as well, so quite balanced. No major changes were required content wise.
Only the editing system was a bit of a mess. It did not accept my pdfs, I had to convert them to an older PDF version (v1.5) Submitting files was not so easy, because the system is locked when it thinks it has successfully received your files, even if that is not the case. As a result I had to sent a lot of emails with files to an assistant editor. Communication was good though, prompt and kind replies to my emails.
Only the editing system was a bit of a mess. It did not accept my pdfs, I had to convert them to an older PDF version (v1.5) Submitting files was not so easy, because the system is locked when it thinks it has successfully received your files, even if that is not the case. As a result I had to sent a lot of emails with files to an assistant editor. Communication was good though, prompt and kind replies to my emails.
Motivation:
The only problem was the delayed iterative process of selecting an academic editor for the MS. After that I was really very satisfied with both the quality and speed of the review process.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process and the editor's comments were helpful. Because the journal is UK based and my articles is very US government based, some things I took for granted needed further clarification. The editor (Monica Blake) responded to e-mails in a timely way and was very helpful.
Motivation:
There was one review very poorly written and most comments could not be understood. It seems like a review written by a postdoc instead of a principal investigator who should be (or was) asked to do perform review. Senior Editor showed no interest for scientific discussion.
Motivation:
Although the paper I submitted was actually a direct response to a polemic attacking our own work quite personally, and published in the same journal, the response read "...your submission would be better suited for a more specialized journal". In other words they sought to block our side of the debate. After I appealed and pointed out that one could not BE more specialised than the journal that had published the original paper, I got "your paper in it's (sic) present form is a review of a review and is not acceptable as a scholarly review or perspective". In other words they do not want to hear criticisms of papers they have published if it does not suit their own views. I am utterly disgusted by them, and I would advise anyone to avoid submitting anything serious there. Ever.
Motivation:
There were two reviewers with contradictory recommendations and different quality of comments. The weaker reviewer recommended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript based on rather poor arguments. The stronger reviewer recommended revise and resubmit and all the points could have been addressed without problems.
Motivation:
It takes a lot to get the reviews.
18.0 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor took a quick decision after submitting the revised version. The communication with the staff was efficient.