Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The suggestions of reviewers were correct, very useful and well formulated. The editor also made good suggestions on the last version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Thanks
Motivation:
Thanks
Motivation:
The editors were very picky regarding permissions from journals for using data from other articles in a table (explicitly identified as being from another source). it was difficult to get the permissions (especially from Elsevier) and this added about a month onto the process after the editorial acceptance of the article
Motivation:
The overall experience was very good. Reviewers provided constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Waiting ca. 2 month for a review response was acceptable, given the length of the manuscript. At the proof stage, correspondence with the editorial team helped a lot to quickly finalize the layout.
Motivation:
It took extremely long, the internet system did not work properly, I had to send emails many times to hear back about my manuscript, etc...
Motivation:
Given the great difference in the opinions of the two reviewers, the editor made a huge effort to personally check the MS, acting as third reviewer and reconsidering the work as worth to be published.
Motivation:
the overall process was OK. The review was very constructive. It just took too long between the acceptance and the proofs. Publication occured even at a later stage (early 2011) although the corrected proofs were already online since october, 26 2010.
Motivation:
The editors of this journal were very responsive to my questions and concerns; they responded quickly to any emails I sent and were easy to work with. The review process was efficient as well. This was an invited submission to a special issue (though it still went out for peer review), so I'm not sure if the process was any different than a standard submission.
Motivation:
The editor took an active role in the review, clearly carefully reading both the reviewer comments and our responses. The reviewers were constructive in their comments, and willing to accept arguments made about how or why things were done as they were. Finally, the submission process is very straightforward: only a simple PDF, with minimal formatting, is needed. All major formatting is done after acceptance, which would save a lot of time if the paper is eventually rejected.
Motivation:
Very quick but thorough review process
Many reviewers (5 in our case), who's comments can improve the paper
Many reviewers (5 in our case), who's comments can improve the paper
Motivation:
too much time for review. reviews only wanted reorganisation and push some data to supplementary material
Motivation:
The review provided was not from a specialist in the field and contained suggestions that were not pertinent to the research. The rejection was contested and the paper was accepted by editorial decision.
Motivation:
Turn around time with reviewers was very quick, queries on initial submission were answered on the same day. Automated submission system is very efficient.
Motivation:
The Biochemical Journal handles the submission/review/revision and decision process extremely professionally. Email confirmations from the automated submission system are clear and interaction with the staff generates quick and efficient replies.
Motivation:
Acting as an editor myself I know that it becomes more and more complicated to identify colleagues willing to act as a reviewer and to respond in time. Therefore editors tend to rely on "fast responding colleagues". These have developed some routine in handling manuscripts, but they are not necessarily outstanding experts in the field of research an individual manuscript is dealing with. Therefore it may be quite complicated to have a manuscript accepted if its topic is not trendy or if it is trans-disciplinary rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
Motivation:
Excellent communication. Good reviews. Great editorial work
Motivation:
The whole process was very fast and very efficient. The Editor himself also suggested small changes that improved the manuscript. I felt that my manuscript received all the necessary attention, and the proofs had almost no errors. I am very happy with the whole procedure.
Motivation:
Reviewers were very helpful, clearly well chosen for style of paper.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Motivation:
I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally