Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The AE unreasonably asked for conducting another study while the reviewers did not ask for it. The AE was also not knowledgeable about the field.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was completely unaware of the field and method. The second reviewer had some knowledge but gave a wrong method comment which was one of the reasons for rejection.
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out several corrections to be made in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Besides, all data have been checked by the NIST, which showed the accuracy of the reviewing process.
Besides, all data have been checked by the NIST, which showed the accuracy of the reviewing process.
Motivation:
the review was very fast
Motivation:
The review process was fast and the reviewers comments were appropriate and sounding
39.1 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Cellular and Molecular Biology journal is a peer reviewed fair journal and publication was done in a good editing within a month
Motivation:
The reviewing process was relatively swift. However, the paper was 'pending editorial decision' for at least three months. Considering that both reviewers recommended publication and very minor corrections the whole process could have been much faster.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and comments received were fair.
Motivation:
Very consistent reviews which made the manuscript improve.
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It was a very pleasent correspondence
Motivation:
I found the journal handled my manuscript in a fair way. The review process did not take too ling. The manuscript was sent to only one reviewer, but he gave very reasonable and competent comments that improved it significantly. The editor just mediated the communication between the authors and the reviewer, in a very formal but efficient way.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
I am happy and I will consider this journal for further publications.
Motivation:
I received three review reports very different from each other. One just corrected references and some typo mistakes. The second focused on just a secondary detail, even taken from another work, and stated that because that was controversial then the all work was to reject and our results were not reproducible. The third analyzed every single sentence of the manuscript, making a lot of very specific criticism but neglecting the entire sense. The editor just sticked to the comments of the second reviewer to motivate the rejection. I found it very unfair, especially the editor's behavior.
Motivation:
REVIEW PROCESS WAS LESS TIME PERIOD. REVIEW WAS EXCELLENT.
Motivation:
Fast review process
5.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was quick, and the reviewers comments improved the manuscript considerably.
Motivation:
I think APJM is a suitable place to submit your studies related to the management issues in emerging markets