Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
10.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The length of time for reviews was very long. I revised the manuscript following the advice of the first reviewers. One had accepted the manuscript with no changes, the other asked for revisions. But then the editors sent the manuscript out to new reviewers who raised other issues. At this point I think it would have been fair to have treated the manuscript as being a first submission and give me the opportunity to revise.
Motivation:
Jonathan Baron reviews all submissions very thoroughly before sending them out to reviewers or rejecting them. He gives great comments and puts a lot of effort into his work.
Motivation:
Overall the authors are satisfied with the review process. We would send our paper to EES again without any problems. We only had some doubts about the number of the reviewers; we received one review, but from the first editorial response we understood there were at least two. When we wrote to the Editor asking about the second review, we didn't receive any response, so we concluded there was only one reviewer. However, we'd prefer to get a response from the Editor. Beside this, we’d like to emphasise that our experience with EES Journal was very good and we appreciate their decision to publish our paper.
Motivation:
Although this a new journal my feel is that this will be become a high profile one. I say this from the overall quality of the papers, the projection in the general media and the new sub-jounals that have been recently generated. The website is also very well made.
In terms of the review process, the first round took a wile, but i think this is not the trend (i think they disclose the time it takes somewhere).
The big thing in terms of the review process that I really like and that I think is a major step forwards in the review process is that the reviewers and the editor discuss between themselves the paper before making a decision. They decide the value of the discovery and what additional exps need to be done in order to prove your point. As opposed to grumpy reviewers that send you a huje list of (mostly) stupid exps and issues that you spend a ton of time trying to address. I really think this is an example to other journals.
Overall I really recommended it. Even if your paper is rejected I think you should be able to get a relatively fast and fare evaluation of you manuscript.
In terms of the review process, the first round took a wile, but i think this is not the trend (i think they disclose the time it takes somewhere).
The big thing in terms of the review process that I really like and that I think is a major step forwards in the review process is that the reviewers and the editor discuss between themselves the paper before making a decision. They decide the value of the discovery and what additional exps need to be done in order to prove your point. As opposed to grumpy reviewers that send you a huje list of (mostly) stupid exps and issues that you spend a ton of time trying to address. I really think this is an example to other journals.
Overall I really recommended it. Even if your paper is rejected I think you should be able to get a relatively fast and fare evaluation of you manuscript.
Motivation:
Very thorough review, including comments from the editor and associate editor, which really improved the paper. The review period was a bit long however.
Motivation:
The review process took far too long for a rejection, and the reviewers did not gave much more information on improving the MS. It should not have taken so long. I will not consider this Journal for a future MS submission.
12.4 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It takes too long time, and editors explanation was insufficient for rejection.
Motivation:
Took far too long to respond. This significantly wasted the authors' time in an arena where research is supposed to be cutting edge. I also thought the reviews were quite narrow-minded in not understanding the benefits of publishing research that was primarily developmental and involved pilot studies, and therefore had interesting developments but was not statistically perfect because of the difficulties involved.
Motivation:
Although the submitted manuscript seems to fit the topic areas for the journal, the editor decided otherwise. I find it very annoying that it took nearly 8 weeks for the editor to reach that conclusion.
Motivation:
Most of the comments of the reviewers were solid and useful. It took two weeks before the subject editor made a decision based on the reviewer comments. However, an aditional review report was added by the subject editor.
Motivation:
The time under review was unacceptably long. Two reviewers actually reviewed the paper, one gave no feedback and the third stated it was a good paper.
Motivation:
We were satisfied that, after the disappointing first round of review (only one brief review), the revised manuscript was sent to two new reviewers who came up with more substantial criticism than the first reviewer had done. After acceptance, SAGE Open really did a lot of work on proofreading and correcting the manuscript (esp. the references section). Unfortunately, the whole process took a lot of time.
Motivation:
The review period took over the stated period of time for both submissions (nearly 4 months). The editor requested changes (that we made) but did not tell us exactly what he wanted to have done and when we submitted it he then rejected because it wasn't the exact/analysis comparison he thought should have been completed. We could have revised those sections but he chose not to give us the opportunity. This was in light of very positive reviews on the first round of submission and that we were able to publish it in an equivalent (or better) journal after the process. I have papers in a number of high impact journals of this caliber (Child Development) and the process here was the worst I have experienced.
Motivation:
Review reports were really good and they significantly improved the manuscript, but the review process was too long (a lot of time between submissions and editor decisions).
Motivation:
The quick turn around time and thoughtful and concise feedback made the experience with submission the JMIR painless.
Motivation:
The editor answered very fast (on Sundays!) after the first submission. Reviewers' comments were helpful and the revised article was accepted within 3 days (at Christmas time, on Dec 25th!). I would recommend this journal.