Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!