Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
In addition to the 2 referee reports, the (associate) editor made some very helpful remarks that improved the presentation.
Motivation:
Four months overall for an answer is quite OK; the reviewer was reasonably quick (around 2 months) and obviously an expert on the topic of the paper; after receiving the referee's report, the editors took about 1 month to send the decision out. (Time estimated are derived from the updates on the paper status from the journal's website.)
Motivation:
Excellent, very speed process; high quality revisions
Motivation:
The editor replied immediately and provided constructive feed-back for possible revisions.
Motivation:
The review process took 17 months. The reviewers had no expertise in the relevant theory or methods. When I tried to contact the editorial office to get an update on the status of our submission, I got no response. (Efforts to contact the journal included 6 attempts directed at the editor and managing editor, and included both email and telephone messages.)
Motivation:
The two reviews for my manuscript were excellent. However, I would have liked to see more interaction between the the anonymous reviewers in terms of responding to some of their more content-based analyses and comments. It seemed as though my revisions were signed off by an editor, rather than by the reviewers. So this part of the review process could be clarified. Essentially, I would have liked to ensure that my response to some theoretical challenges was acceptable and/or justified correctly by the reviewers themselves.
I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
Motivation:
Economics Letters used to be extremely slow. The current editorial team has really improved things.
Motivation:
The comments by the reviewers were constructive and resulted in a better paper at the end. All their concern were well founded. What is most important is that the manuscript was not rejected straight away, and allowed the resubmission of the corrected manuscript.
The Editor was also very professional and supportive.
The Editor was also very professional and supportive.
Motivation:
The journal considered our manuscript "out of scope" and thus rejected it.
The process was fast and relatively clear.
The process was fast and relatively clear.
Motivation:
The editor was extremely efficient and professional.
The review process was quick.
The review process was quick.
13.1 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Excellent, personal communication with journal's office. Speedy reviews. Mixed quality of reviews: one from external reviewe (very good quality), another from one of the editors (poor quality, offensive tone). Production process at Springer was a complete desaster: someone in India added multiple errors to the manuscript.
Motivation:
I received my rejection in less than 3 months, the reviews were of exceptionally high quality and improved the later version of my paper significantly.
Motivation:
The review reports were of high quality and helpful for strenghtening the paper.
Motivation:
Very fast handling of the reviewing process.
Motivation:
My criticism was that it took the journal nearly half a year to get two reviewers to write an extremely short and unconstructive review. Added to that, one of the reviewers seemed incompetent with regard to the topic of the paper due to the nature of the comments received.
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was returned to us for a moderate amount of revision, and unlike our experience with several other journals he accepted it without subjecting the revised version to multiple rounds of further review. We have consistently had good experiences with this journal; although they don't always accept our work (well, their acceptance rate is now <15%), they are fast and constructive, and whenever they do return our work to be revised they will usually accept the revised version without delaying it with further unnecessary rounds of re-review. Our labgroup is very satisfied with this journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to 3 reviewers. All were generally positive, and the Editor decided on 'reject allowing resubmission'. We put a lot of work into revising it to satisfy what the reviewers wanted and sewnt the new version back in. It went to the same 3 reviewers; two were supportive while the third decided to move the goal posts. The Editor decided on that basis to reject. The tone of the editor was a bit condescending and superior which is unfortunalely not the first time I have encountered this attitude from that journal.
Motivation:
The review process was long, but reviewers did a great job checking every part of the manuscript and appendices. Suggestions were good but required a lot of new work to be done.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by a single editor with a very evasive rejection motive, 4 words: "more suitable for a specialized journal". Not even a word about what kind of "specialized journal" the editor is referring to.
Motivation:
The reviewers took a very long time to reject the paper. The article submitted was within the self-imposed criteria of Plos One. Only one reviewer objected entirely and sounded biases, yet the article was not send to a third reviewer to provide a fair review. The reviewer who objected wanted to have an entirely different study produced and did not really take any interest in what data was provided.
Motivation:
The editorial process and the choice of reviewers was very good. The reviewers were picky but fair. The editor seemed interested and always rather in favor of the authors. The editorial process post-acception was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
After an 8 month delay only very minor corrections were requested. These were made within 24 hours and the paper resubmitted. Nevertheless, it still took over 2 more months to get a further (acceptance) response.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.
Motivation:
The reviews were point full and improved the MS