Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Published twice on the journal. First time the editors were very active and up to their job; got the reviews back quickly as well as a reasoned decision. When submitted the second paper the editors had changed. The process was considerably slower and the editors seemed to have hard time in making the final decision.
10.0 weeks
30.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
2.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The referee based on its "eventual" experience did not believe the results. Only after same mails directly with the editor the manuscript was accepted.
13.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Evaluations were made to improve the quality of the manuscript. A reviewer in particular has very interesting suggestions on chemometric tools used, worthy of a participant co-authored the article. We were very pleased.
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and apparently failed to communicate clearly as most of the points criticized are actually in the manuscript. Standard handling of the manuscript.
60.8 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
It is excellent journal in its impact and discipline.
21.3 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviews from this journal although takes long are very constructive
19.7 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
As soon as the comments by the reviewers were addressed to then the manuscript was accepted
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and then one of the reviewers suggested rejection because of many minor issues. Comments are to the point and will help strengthen the paper.
Motivation:
All the reviews were aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and fast
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process and publication with Elsevier was outstanding.
1.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
although it took some time, but the reviewers were very accurate, and the review process was smooth and justified.
Motivation:
I had a very positive and productive interaction with the editorial office, especially with the processing of figures
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
I took reviewers comments very positively and these were genuine in order to improve the manuscript. I appreciate journal policy and editor's response in this regards, and publishing team also was very helpful
Motivation:
Very swift response and good reviewers
Motivation:
In this specific occasion, reviewing process was very fast but a little bit less accurate than usual, according to my previous experience with the same journal. However, proof editing and all associated editorial services respected a high standard.