Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
one reviewer has not completely read the paper; he claimed himself being not an expert in the field, but would be able to regularly "understand" articles in the field; advised author to have persons with "no idea" about the topic to review possible resubmission beforehand
Motivation:
Rapid review in relation to experience with other journals
Relevant and incisive comments from reviewers who demonstrated knowledge of field and had clearly read the article properly.
No irrelevant comments/critic
Relevant and incisive comments from reviewers who demonstrated knowledge of field and had clearly read the article properly.
No irrelevant comments/critic
Motivation:
The reviewprocess took very long and in my opinion one of the reviewer seemed not to have read the manuscript properly. When we requested response from the editor because of apperent missunderstandings in the reviewers comments we did not recieve any answer.
Motivation:
The review process was good in the statistical analysis of the results
Motivation:
The reviewers appeared to be in a hurry, looking for any excuse to reject. The reasons they gave were imaginary, things that existed only in the reveiwer's minds. The words they used did not match the contents of the paper. This is irresponsible behavior. The publishing of papers is the primary criteria for being hired into research positions. These reviewers have tremendous power over the lives of authors. There needs to be a feedback mechanism in place that corrects their behavior when they act irresponsibly like this.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted within a reasonable amount of time and the Editor very nicely showed concern in speeding up the publication (proposing us to publish the paper in a special issue). I didn't put the mark "10" just because I like to read the referees's report and we didn't have access to them (but I confess I didn't ask and was happy with the acceptance)
Motivation:
The review process was rather fast as compared to other journals (2 reviews after about 5 weeks). The comments of one reviewer were very destructive and did not seem reasonable to me.
Motivation:
The Editor rejected the paper, although the Reviewer's comments seemed quite positive to me. I could not really understand the Editor's decision.
Motivation:
The Editor's as well as the Reviewer's comments were very helpful and constructive-minded, they helped to further improve the quality of the paper. In my opinion, the first review round took relatively long, but after that, everything went fine and quickly.
Motivation:
This was my first experience with double-blinded process. I have to say that it was a really positive experience for the obvious reason; I noticed that there was not bias at all in the process regarding our experience in the field. They evaluate only the submitted work.
Motivation:
The reviewers were knowledgable about the topic and offered good insight. The review was prompt as were the AEs reports and final decision.
Motivation:
I think the reviewers put effort in their reviews, and the paper became better thanks to the reviews. The whole process took long though, and I felt it wasn't necessary to send the paper to the reviewers a third time.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the first reviews could have been shorter.
Motivation:
My main concern is about the reviewers. After adding new data (according to the reviews) and re-submission, one reviewer came up with totally new points that could have been addressed already in the first version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
After manuscript acceptance, a lot of tedious small changes of the galley proof was asked by the Editorial office
Motivation:
The review process was unfair. I pointed out that one reviewer was wrong concerning an alleged error. The associate editor refused to forward this clarification to the said reviewer. Moreover, he refused to answer some questions regarding arguments for rejection or revision. Instead, he suggested resubmission of a newe article after revision. But: What should be revised? I was not amused.
Motivation:
I found the process tidy and the reviewers' comments very helpful. The overall duration of the process was too long to encourage many new submissions from my lab, however. The nearly 18-month delay between manuscript acceptance and the publication date was particularly impractical. Still, it's a good journal and I believe our manuscript was much improved through the review process.
Motivation:
Not all reviewers were familiar with an important aspect of the paper. Therefore it took quite an effort to explain them the background. However, there were also some comments, which led to an improvement of the paper. The review process was comparably fast.
Motivation:
Very speedy and professional review process.
Motivation:
Review process was relatively speedy and professional.
8.7 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Speedy and transparent review process, with suitably matched reviewers.
Motivation:
The interactive review process facilitates an efficient discussion.