Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript should have been sent out for external assessment. Obviously the editor believes the readership will not benefit from the contents. I have experienced this before and the article is now a "highly cited" (405 citations to date) in the area.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled very well by this journal. The review process was quite quick and the reviewer's comments were of a high standard, and fair. After addressing the comments the quality of my manuscript was greatly improved. I would recommend this journal without reservation.
Motivation:
The editors obviously did not read the paper but only relied upon external reports. One report completely ignored what I said the paper was about and based his comments on his own participation in conferences whose proceedings were not published. I said the paper was about commercialized agriculture, the reviewer wanted to talk about food subsistence. That said, the report said the paper was well-written and scholarly. The main shortcoming was that I did not take account of his own work and point of view (which was unpublished). The second reviewer's comments were completely out of touch with reality and made no sense. I previously had published a dozen or so articles in this journal since 1992, but the editor and perhaps editorial board have changed recently.
Motivation:
This is a good journal. The Editor and reviews are very good.
Motivation:
GEC kept me well-informed throughout the review process - I was constantly getting emails about the status of the manuscript and I felt that the review process was timely. Two minor points to add however. First, I would have liked to have known at the outset whether or not it had been sent out for review as there's quite a long wait at that point where you're not sure whether it's been immediately rejected or not. Second, I also tried and failed to get advance warning of final publication so that my institute could do some PR, but despite emails requesting notice, that didn't happen - I just got an email saying it was published already.
Motivation:
Manuscript rejected without explanation despite clear relevance. Very disappointed with the process. Contacted the editors politely and got a disdainful response.
26.0 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Review process was relatively fast and thorough. Needed to convert the (accepted) paper from LaTeX to Word, but otherwise went well.
Motivation:
A paper that was clearly fit for the journal was rejected without review and with a generic email stating that it might be because of 3 reasons, none of which apply to the paper.
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers seemed not to have correctly understood the paper, maybe dedicated too little time, and the critiques in the report were therefore not very useful.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled rather quick. Only the final decision (after minor revisions) took a while. The comments given were usefull and relevant. The journal stresses the importance of correct use of English language and formatting (they even requested to consult external editing service), although the document with guidelines is not very complete and written in a clear way.
Motivation:
Dr. Huising and Dr. Klemes do great job in taking the manuscript, handling and finding reviewers and maintaining a fast communication in all aspects. JCP was the most efficient journal that I have worked with so far. I can assure you that you will receive iniitial feedback in less than 2-2.5 months
Motivation:
It took very very long (16~18 months) for the first review for two of my papers in this journal (both accepted with little delay after first review). However, another paper took only 5 months from first submission to publication. So it was a mixed bag.
Motivation:
Fast review and reviewers were really into the topic with very helpful comments.
Motivation:
Review process was fast. Reviewers did not understand the paper very well, it might be because it was a bit offtopic. Also, both reviewers contradicted each other.
Motivation:
Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.
Motivation:
The reviewing process is fast but the reviews look like the reviewers were not really into the topic of the paper. Most of the comments of the reviewers were meaningless.
Motivation:
Slow review process. Also, although the reviews were OK, they did not understand the contributions of the paper. It is hard to introduce a new point of view in an already saturated area.
Motivation:
The review process is fast but this journal looks for non very-technical contributions adn they complained that my paper was not technical enough.
Motivation:
Long time for first review. Single reviewer demanded essential parts to be taken out and wrong statements to be taken in (besides other valuable points). Demands were formulated clearly and unambiguous.
Motivation:
Quick handling and fair reviews with constructive critique that lead to important improvements in the manuscript.
Motivation:
I had a great experience with the journal. The peer reviewers were helpful and fair, and the editorial team was great to work with.
Motivation:
NEJM is obviously a great and reputable journal, so there isn't much to say about quality. Equally impressive is their very quick screening of manuscripts to determine if they are a potential fit for the journal. My submission was rejected for fit issues within 3 days, which I greatly appreciated as it saved me an enormous amount of time.
Motivation:
Although my paper was rejected and I was obviously disappointed, I felt as though I received a very fair peer review and compliment the quality of the editorial team and processes. I highly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
Very professional editorial team and very easy to work with. The peer reviewers were quite helpful. This journal does a great job.
Motivation:
Great journal and editorial team. They were very easy to work with and very helpful for authors providing submissions.