Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Relatively fast initial , and thorough review, of which one review disagreed with a lot of aspects in the manuscript. The journal was also flexible enough to extend my deadline for resubmission with a week. The decision on acceptance took very long though, and involved me chasing up the editor two times to ask what was happening with my paper. But in the end happy with the process
Motivation:
The review process was quick, double-blind, and seemed fair. The requirements of the editors were based on the reviews and were justified. The only drawback was that one of the three reviews was extremely short and not helpful at all. In my opinion, the editors shouldn't have considered this a proper review.
Motivation:
Very polite answer from the editor. Submission was handled relatively professionally, although the communication with the journal did not work always well (we received an acnkowledgement of receipt for our submission only 1.5 months after our submission and only after having sollicited for an answer).
Motivation:
The review's comments were full of grammatical mistakes. There were no suggestions in the comments on how to improve the paper. The comments also seem unnecessarily harsh.
Motivation:
Very polite ans well motivated answer from the editor.
Motivation:
I have very disappointed experiences for this journal. For examples, the paper from the some influential groups may be accepted within a day after submission while in other situation it takes long time to be published (You can check by looking closely receipt and acceptance dates). Even though sometime reviewers do not understand the topics, they gave irrational comments, requests revisions and finally rejected without giving any rational comments.
Motivation:
The editor stated that they normally do not take this long to respond and an apology was given for the delay.
Motivation:
Editor did not bother to look at the paper at all
Motivation:
The reason made it obvious that the editor did not even bother to read the introduction, likely did not even make it through the abstract
Motivation:
Review process efficient, handling by editor professional, good reviews
Motivation:
The referee recommended a minor revision, but an anonymous associate editor recommended rejection without providing a reason. The editor followed that recommendation without even looking into the report
Motivation:
after 11 days I requested a Status of the manuscript, which appeared still as "submitted" - answer to the request:
The status of your manuscript is:
Your manuscript has been submitted and it will be reviewed for formatting and relevancy as soon as possible.
The status of your manuscript is:
Your manuscript has been submitted and it will be reviewed for formatting and relevancy as soon as possible.
Motivation:
This paper won an award at a national conference, and the editor solicited this paper for submission. We are outside the field and unfamiliar with the field conventions. Given the circumstances, we were surprised to get an outright rejection rather than the opportunity to revise the paper to meet the field's conventions.
Motivation:
One review was 1 sentence long, asking why anyone would be interested in the topic. The other review addressed unclear abbreviations in tables and made small suggestions for the figures; only substantive question was central to the paper.
Motivation:
Reason was generic: "Due to the large volume of excellent manuscripts that are submitted, editors are often forced to make decisions based on topic priority."
Motivation:
Paper used advanced methods for an analytic study design relating to a question of social disparities in health using high-quality data from multi-million dollar project with no recent equivalent from 12 years ago. Reviewer dismissed paper in 1 sentence: data were "REALLY old".
Motivation:
Dataset was more than 3 years old, so journal would not consider despite reasons given in cover letter such as addressing several past studies published in the journal with better data.
Motivation:
The overall process took very long and I was not always notified about delays. I had to send quite some notifications to remind the editor about my submission. Additionally, the editor did not always keep her promises which resulted in some frustration on my end. To be honest, I would not recommend anyone to submit a paper to this journal. It's a very tiresome process.
Motivation:
Editorial management: excellent.
Review quality: very poor. The paper has been rejected because results are not consistent with reviewers beliefs. Unfortunately, reviewers have not provided any scientific argument and reference to support their opinion. Overall, not even a single suggestion has been provided to improve the analysis and the manuscript.
Review quality: very poor. The paper has been rejected because results are not consistent with reviewers beliefs. Unfortunately, reviewers have not provided any scientific argument and reference to support their opinion. Overall, not even a single suggestion has been provided to improve the analysis and the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewer focused on matters of presentation and style, commenting in detail about graphs and tables without addressing at all the paper's topic.
Motivation:
Reviewers were favorable in recommending publication (one accept and one suggested a couple of revisions), but the editors rejected it anyway, with no opportunity to revise. Plus, the 6 month review time was unprofessional.
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Swift review process. After submission of the revised manuscript competent editors assessed the revised version without another round of reviews and accepted it immediately (I figure upon seeing that apt changes were made).
Motivation:
I am very satisfied about my submissions to this journal. The comments of the reviewers always helped to improve the article.
Motivation:
Although my article was rejected, the review procedure was very fast, and communication with the journal very efficient
Motivation:
The review process was fair and constructive, and the length of the whole process was expectable given the character of the article (length, scope).
Motivation:
Review process was speedy and adequate. However, some editorial details had to be fixed (switching decimal commas to decimal points in figures, to comply with journal style) which proved to be very tardy due to misunderstandings and technical problems. This significantly slowed down the procedure of final acceptance of the article.
Motivation:
Very good handling of the manuscript. Good and competent reviewers and a rather speedy process.