Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The handling was overall efficient, cordial, and fair. The publication time (from acceptance to print) was 1 year. Insistence on word limits added to the difficulty of finalizing. Handling of figures did not allow colour reproductions, even for electronic version without substantial cost, and figure space counts towards word limit, making the task even more difficult.
Motivation:
Online publishing system for sending a little messy. The editor replied quickly. One of the reviewers did not respond for a long time, although his comments related only to the style of the text.
Motivation:
It took two months or so to get two reviews (which were really helpful by the way), but what makes this submission remarkable is that the editor had to contact 11 peers to get these two reviews. Some people immediately refused to review the paper, but most of them just did not respond to the editor requests. The editor handled the process really well; he or she managed to provide timely feedback even given the lack of response from the reviewers.
Motivation:
Relatively fast, constructive comments
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The second round of review lasted for more than 6 months. After the first round we had one positive and one negative review, so the editor decided to send the paper to one more reviewer. Apparently, it was the search for the new reviewer that took so much time. Finally, the paper was rejected even given that the new reviewer provided quite constructive criticism that in principle could be addressed in a minor revision of the paper.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviewers and editors provided excelent input and drove me to get a more general and elegant result.
Motivation:
The submission process has very clear requirements.
The recommendations of the Key Reader and reviewers led to the manuscript improvement.
The recommendations of the Key Reader and reviewers led to the manuscript improvement.
Motivation:
I think the editors overstated the extent of revisions that would have been required from the one reviewer that suggested revisions to clarify theoretical concepts employed. Second reviewer had no revisions suggested. Given these reviews, an outright rejection rather than R&R seemed severe.
Motivation:
I had a great experience with Communication Research with Dr. Roloff as my editor. The manuscript benefited greatly from the editor's and reviewers' comments. The only issue is the backlog of manuscripts waiting to be published.
Motivation:
Review was professionally handled
Motivation:
The review was done very unrpfessionaly and some arguments used to reject the paper were clearly wrong. I had the feeling that the refee did not bother tor ead the paper carefully at al.
Motivation:
Apart from slow review process, I was quite happy witht the outcome, especially as the topics of the paper is mutidisciplinary and this was the first article in this filed in Geofizika, as far as I know.
Motivation:
Positive experience in every respect:
- completely acceptable duration of the refereeing process for a journal of this quality (a little less than 9 months)
- Mathematische Annalen tries to keep their authors informed: we received an acknowledgement of receipt on the day of submission, we were informed immediately after the referee report was received, and just a few days later we were told about the final acceptance.
- completely acceptable duration of the refereeing process for a journal of this quality (a little less than 9 months)
- Mathematische Annalen tries to keep their authors informed: we received an acknowledgement of receipt on the day of submission, we were informed immediately after the referee report was received, and just a few days later we were told about the final acceptance.
Motivation:
One of the two reports recommended acceptance, the other (by the same negative referee of the first round) rejection. We had also explained to the editor at painstaking length that the requested changes were out of the focus of the paper. The editor decided not only to reject, but (on the grounds that "both" reports were negative!!!) said that, since it would be impossible to revise this paper without writing it anew (!!!) any resubmission would be treated as new. Mind that this paper was invited and recommended by one of the CQG editors, still the editor in charged completely ignored both the inviting editor's recommendation and the positive report. Totally unprofessional behaviour; that editor felt free to bully and make arbitrary decisions protected by his anonymity. I'll never submit again to this journal.
Motivation:
The editor clearly pointed out what editor's comments has to be addressed ( and what is less important) to improve our chance for acceptance. Very helpful. Very helpful.
Motivation:
Editor was slow, arrogant and not very competent for our theme of research.
Motivation:
Note that, for this comment (that is my work is already done) Reviewer takes more than 15 months.
Also, when I submitted, my results was new, but due to slow processing and reviewing after 6-7 months of my submission similar results to those I submitted was published by another journal ( more reputed than this journal).
Also, when I submitted, my results was new, but due to slow processing and reviewing after 6-7 months of my submission similar results to those I submitted was published by another journal ( more reputed than this journal).
Motivation:
The journal took far too long to review the manuscript. I wrote after 6 months to enquire about the delay and was told that two reviewers had agreed to review the manuscript, that one review had been submitted and the other would be submitted imminently. Four months later (i.e. 10 months post-submission), I received a rejection letter on the basis of only one review.
Motivation:
I feel this a generally positive experience. The turnaround time was decent. There were one or two comments that I felt stemmed from not having read the MS carefully, but overall the comments were well-observed and helped me to improve the manuscript a great deal. They were quite strict on the word count.
Motivation:
Very prompt review process.
Motivation:
In terms of argumentation provided the journal scored a good mark. The conclusion made, namely to not ask for a revision for new submission but reject the manuscript, stood at certain odds with the substantive, mostly constructive and valuable dialogue entered with the manuscript by the reviewers, with various pointers for direct improvement. Finally the time, at 9 months, taken for the review may be considered rather lengthy, even if recognition is given to the difficulties many journals face with securing relevant reviewers. Hence an overall mark of 6.
Motivation:
very rigoreous review process, but long.