Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
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.