Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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!
Motivation:
Very helpful and constructive advice in sharpening the draft.
Motivation:
Good reviewers comments.
Fast procedure
Fast procedure
Motivation:
The review process is fast and in depth.
Motivation:
I have submitted a different article to the same journal and was rejected. The reviewers comments were, in my opinion, unfair. I have emailed the editor asking him to give me the opportunity to defend my article. He did not even reply my email. I would like to suggest that authors of the rejected articles being given an opportunity, if they like, to defend them.
Motivation:
The comments were valid, focused on scientific quality and the changes made the paper better in the end. For me who publish in a trans-disciplinary field it was important to have extarnals read it to make sure the language and approach was understandable for experts from different fields.
Motivation:
The duration of the whole process could have been shorter but as such went very well and reasonably fast.