Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I received two reviews. The first was opinionated without supporting facts. The second was a reasonable review with objective critiques. Ultimately, no reason for the rejection was given except for the standard "not high enough priority." However, based on the available reviewer comments this could not be put in perspective.
Motivation:
Painless submission process with reasonable and objective reviews.
Motivation:
The article submission process was very streamlined and was one of the simplest I have encountered to date. The review and final notification of acceptance were also shorter than I expected. The editorial team bent over backwards to assist with any issues I had with the electronic system.
Motivation:
The reviewers were clearly experts, and gave a rapid but thorough review.
Motivation:
The decision to reject on the basis of being out of scope for the journal needs to be made immediately, not after sixteen months in process.
Motivation:
The reviewers found a subtle but serious flaw in the mathematics. The flaw was fixable, so I regret the reject/no resubmission decision, but it was handled fairly.
Motivation:
Great review process despite rejection. Comments very helpful in the end.
Motivation:
I spent 5 months waiting for a revise and resubmit from 2 reviewers and 1 OK. I then addressed the reviewers comments in good faith for 6 months. I then waited 6 months for 2 reviewers to reject and 1 to say Ok (again). I am fine with reviewers opinions - even from those who are initially encouraging and then sharply critical, even if the latter is disagreeable. However it should be the editor's job to explain and moderate in this situation - not to simply copy paste a reviewer's comment by way of explanation. Overall: a huge waste of time. Thank goodness there are just as good journals out there, who may know how to run things properly.
Motivation:
In robotics, as any other multidisciplinary science, the review process is far from being straightforward. In most situations, either on journals or relevant conferences in the field, such as IROS or ICRA, reviews may not fill our expectations. Either because they may fail to grasp the mathematical complexity associated with the proposed methodologies, or because they completely ignore the hard and time-consuming work associated with real-world experiments.
The Robotics and Autonomous Systems journal, aka. RAS, is perhaps the most well-suited journal in the field of robotics at the moment. In general, the review process is considerably faster than the alternatives (between 3 to 5 months), and the quality of the revisions is undoubtedly above the average, with always 3 or more reviewers for each report. The current editors, in particularly Prof. R. Dillmann, usually handle the decision process quite fast (around 1 week between each phase) and minor revisions are assessed without going back to the reviewers in most situations. Note that this does not mean that the review process lakes quality. In fact, it is quite the opposite and the progressive evolution of RAS impact factor over the last few years says it all.
To sum it up, if I would have to advise any roboticist on a good journal, with a considerably fast and fair review process, RAS would be the way to go. It has a broad scope within robotics field and publishes a large number of papers per year (around 100).
The Robotics and Autonomous Systems journal, aka. RAS, is perhaps the most well-suited journal in the field of robotics at the moment. In general, the review process is considerably faster than the alternatives (between 3 to 5 months), and the quality of the revisions is undoubtedly above the average, with always 3 or more reviewers for each report. The current editors, in particularly Prof. R. Dillmann, usually handle the decision process quite fast (around 1 week between each phase) and minor revisions are assessed without going back to the reviewers in most situations. Note that this does not mean that the review process lakes quality. In fact, it is quite the opposite and the progressive evolution of RAS impact factor over the last few years says it all.
To sum it up, if I would have to advise any roboticist on a good journal, with a considerably fast and fair review process, RAS would be the way to go. It has a broad scope within robotics field and publishes a large number of papers per year (around 100).
Motivation:
I have applied a complicated mathematical method in a geostistical application. The reviwers was familiar with application but unfamiliar with my new approach basics. Hence I have some difficulties with them. However I should emphasize that some of their comments was usefull and help improve my paper.
Motivation:
Lengthy reviewing time.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
Motivation:
The review was fair and constructive, and special appreciation for the linguistic assistance for non native English speaking author..
Motivation:
The assistant editor was very thorough, both scientifically and with respect to writing. The manuscript was significantly improved by interaction with this assistant editor, and further improvements were made by the chief editor.
Motivation:
Everything was fine and smooth regardless of final outcome, the way is supposed to be
Motivation:
The review process was very rigorous, and handled in a very professional manner. I received some very challenging reviews, but the consequence is that the articles were greatly improved, over-broad assertions were pruned back to defensible positions, and the subject matter was completely vetted. Given that the articles constituted a long-view historical treatment of research developments of hundreds of researchers, it was very important to get everything right. The Computer Music Journal and the MIT Press were good allies in the process of obtaining the very best work from me.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast even with four reviewers. The total process from first submission to acceptance after revision took only about ten days. However, I have recently had another paper accepted by the journal (not yet published) and the review process was a bit longer with only two reviwers. But still fast (I will submit ratings here for that review process later)
Motivation:
Serious journal that respect the timing
Motivation:
They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
Motivation:
waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
Motivation:
This is the first time I submitted a research paper to MST and I am fully satisfied with the review process as well as editorial assistance.
Motivation:
Comunication with Editorial office was very good.
Motivation:
Very serious and professional in all the steps
Motivation:
The Editor did not realise that the reviewer were not competent in the field
Motivation:
The Review of the manuscript was constructive and improved our work.
Motivation:
From submission to final acceptance through reviews everything was highly satisfactory but they failed to give author's copy even after repeated mails to the journal office. Finally I had to get in touch with the Editor-in-chief and one of his assistance sent me a .pdf of my article.
Motivation:
Very quick and professional review process.
Motivation:
The best thing with this journal :
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
Motivation:
The review process of this journal is satisfing.