Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The only issue is that the reviewer's comments (while kinda insightful) focused on a really small part of the paper itself, without addressing the general idea. Overall, however, I am satisfied with the review process.
Motivation:
The peer review was well above my expectation and satisfaction. Reviewers provided valuable comments and high words of appreciation. Editor was kind enough in extending his/her willingness on the submission.
Motivation:
The referee report is positive and polite even though there are many suggested corrrections. The review time is short, and the time between acceptance and published online is short. I like it.
Motivation:
it took over 2 months for the review, a little bit long
Motivation:
The highlight of the review process was that it was very fast. The editor was very efficient and responsive. Most of the comments from the reviewers made sense and were very reasonable. Overall it was a positive experience for me.
Motivation:
Fast reply and constructive comment from editor.
Motivation:
Reviewers were anonymous but clearly competent. The editor was particularly attentive to organization of the MS, compliance to journal style and language rules, and related details. Total processing time from submission to publication was less than one year, which I regard as excellent.
Motivation:
International Journal of acarology (IJA) is a peer-review and well-known journal, usually with a rapid and professional review process. I am satisfactory with all processes of submission, review and publication in this journal and will submit more manuscript to publish in IJA in future.
Motivation:
Very professional editor who had helpful comments on the conflicting reviews.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow and it was sent only to 1 reviewer, who was not very experienced in the field of the paper
Motivation:
The response by the editor was very fast (1 day!!) and provided a good argumentation of why they considered the manuscript unfit for their journal.
Motivation:
The topic of the manuscript was considered uninteresting by the editor, but we felt this was mostly due to a very superficial reading of the article (perhaps only the abstract) since they seemed to have misunderstood the exact research topic.
Motivation:
The editor read and informed us swiftly about the decision on the manuscript. He also took the trouble of writing a long and detailed argumentation of why the manuscript was not good enough for the journal, while keeping a respectful and kind tone.
Motivation:
The review process went fast and smooth. The editor was also very kind and respectful.
Motivation:
While the replies of the editor and reviewers were swift, the process could hardly be called standard policy. For instance, before the manuscript was sent out to any reviewers, the editor already requested adjustments.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and very transparent, taking only three months from the first submission until accepting the final version.
Motivation:
Very quick process but would have liked to receive the actual reports from the reviewers.
Motivation:
An outgoing editor did not pass on submitted papers, leading to a long revision process.
Motivation:
The review process appeared to be rather unprofessional. The response only came after I asked about the status of the review process. There were no reasons given for the rejection.
Motivation:
Very professional handling of the review process. The review process was fast and transparent, and the reviews had a high quality. Even though I did not agree with all parts of the reasoning, I could well understand the decision of the editors.
Motivation:
The positive point is the short term of the review process.
Negative point: a 2 lines review mostly suggesting another less ranked journal.
Negative point: a 2 lines review mostly suggesting another less ranked journal.