Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I think the editor of this journal did an outstanding job (despite of the fact that she rejected our submission). We received a editorial letter that summarized the different reviews very well and suggested a clear direction for the revision. After the reject in the second round we received an elaborate explanation.
Motivation:
The whole process was a bit slow and the only reviewer report we received did not contribute much to the improvement of the paper; rather we just lost 5 months with it.
Motivation:
The submission occurred at the end of July and was in the 'awaiting Associate Editor assignment' stage for a long time. After 2.5 months I emailed them and got a response about a week later with a rejection from the editor. The response was not very long and detailed. However it was written very constructively and they encouraged me to submit a new version of the paper after major revisions.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews do not match the quality of the journal.
Motivation:
Reviews quality was OK but processing and publication times were really fast.
Motivation:
The process was slow, the reviews were detailed and fair, and the outcome is a much better paper.
Motivation:
It was a fair review, but 3 months is a long time to wait, just for a rejection.
Motivation:
This is the first and only time I have had a manuscript rejected without it being reviewed by external reviewers of by an editor; and also the first time I've had a rejection but without any reason being provided for the rejection.
42.1 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviews were very valuable and constructive, from someone who was very knowledgeable of the field. The reviews enhanced the quality of paper a lot.
Motivation:
The decision was very fast. They stated the suitability of the article on the journal and suggested where can I publish the manuscript.
Motivation:
Everything was fine, fast, and convenient (the editorial office would copy edit our manuscript so I was not required to send a revised version), but when we received the proofs we discovered that substantial changes had been performed on our manuscript, is some cases changing completely the meaning of what we were stating. We had to correct all passages. It would be better to let us to prepare the revised version.
Motivation:
The review process was OK, but I had to complain to the editorial office to receive the information that the work had been accepted (they informed me that they "already had" the review), after acceptance there was a long time until the proofs were sent to me and, after that, a long time until the manuscript appeared in the "ahead of print" section of their website. Again, there was a long period until a doi number was assigned and then I discovered the manuscript had already been published (without receiving any information from the editorial office). Anyway, it is a small journal published by scientific societies (so, no major publisher is involved), still, they should maintain a bit of professionalism in handling the manuscripts.
Motivation:
They mentioned the focus of their journal and where potentially my manuscript can be sent.
Motivation:
One week after submission the status of the paper changed to 'Under review'. Two days later, however, the paper was rejected anyway.
Motivation:
Review was quick and of good quality
Motivation:
Interesting review that clearly improved the final manuscript.
Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers.
Five weeks to get under review seems a long time but I guess it is not always easy to find reviewers.
Motivation:
It really took a bit long (almost a year) to get just one reviewer. The review was detailed, though.
Motivation:
Very constructive and useful reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.
The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
I was really impressed with this review-process.
The only drawback is that it took (in my opinion) too long when I received the first reviews.
Motivation:
The review process was handled very well by the editorial assistant. The first-round review took very long, but upon inquiry the EA quickly replied with some more information about the reason for the delay. Overall, the process went quite smoothly.
Motivation:
The suggestions of the reviewers where interesting and adequated, I fully agree with them.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.
Motivation:
The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.