Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Response - a rejection - was received in exactly 3 months later.
Motivation:
This journal is excellent when it comes to timely, careful reviews. I have found the associate editors to be very helpful and easy to deal with. I recommend this journal!
Motivation:
AEHE generally publishes some very good papers, which motivated me to consider publishing there. I was quite dismayed with the quality of the peer reviewers, though. One of the reviewers claimed to be subject matter experts in the area, but his/her comments indicated otherwise. When I presented my evidence to the editor that one of the reviewers was seemingly unqualified, the editor forwarded my comments to the anonymous reviewer who ultimately admitted that s/he didn't know anything about the subject or methodology. The editor offered to send the paper to another reviewer, but many months of valuable time had already been wasted so I opted to pull the manuscript and submit it to a journal that had a Call for Papers and promised a very quick decision.
Motivation:
I had a good experience with Academic Medicine. I felt I was given a fair peer review and have no qualms with any of that. However, our article was ultimately rejected because the topic had previously been published in Academic Medicine. This despite having excellent reviews from the reviewers. With good editorial screening, this verdict could have been reached within days and not wasted valuable reviewer time, or that of the authors.
Motivation:
Medical Education is a highly regarded journal based in the UK. While the journal surely receives a high volume of submissions, reviews are incredibly questionable. I have submitted six articles to this journal in the past and each time I felt as though my work was reviewed by persons with minimal knowledge of the subject area. Three of the six papers I submitted were accepted for publication, but the incredibly poor quality peer-reviews and apparent editorial "napping" made the process so miserable that I simply withdrew two of the three accepted papers and never followed up. I have never had this type of strange, and negative, experience with any other journal.
Motivation:
The data used in the study was public domain data from the internet. However, the journal has a rigid policy of requiring all papers to be considered by an ethics committee. This was clearly unnecessary in this case, and something I have never before encountered.
Motivation:
The reviews we received were very good. I was slightly disappointed that the article was sent out a second time as it did not require any major revisions (such as additional data collection). I felt the editor could have made an assessment from our revision based on the first set of reviews. The second review process added 67 days, making the total time under review about 6 months.
Motivation:
The handling editor did not do a good job. After the first review round we were informed that basically only layout/formatting/style had to be changed. However, after the second round the manuscript was rejected because the editor had now realized that the study had, according to her/him, major flaws.
Motivation:
Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
Motivation:
The reviewing process is always well-scheduled. Often responces come before the scheduled time.The reviewers are competent and helpful. The improvement of my papers after revision is tremendous.
Motivation:
There is no any editorial disciplne. The paper was kept 1 year. Very poor managerial skills of the editors and indifference to the work of other people.
Motivation:
Editor provided an extremely quick response and seemed to have the best interests of the authors as a priority.
Motivation:
Took nearly three months for the Editor to reject a manuscript without sending out to review.
Motivation:
High reputation of the Regional Editor, the reviewing and revising processes follow clear schedule, the reviewers are attentive, professional, helpful and polite.
Motivation:
Very agile review process. Reviewer's comments were irregular, some of them were very useful and insightful, others were trivial.
Motivation:
The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
Motivation:
A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.
Motivation:
Helpful comments from editor
Motivation:
Submission involved mailing paper version to Italy.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.