Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The referee did not read the paper but he/she rejected the paper with una sentence without motivation.
Motivation:
First review in which reviewer confessed having only read approximately half of the paper. That's it. And it took three years from submission to publication.
Motivation:
This was my first experience with this journal and I was totally impressed with the rapid responses and reasonable concerns.
Motivation:
The reviewers were experts in the topic of the manuscript and their comments were very insightful and helped to improve the paper in substantial points. The whole publication process was relatively fast.
Motivation:
Despite providing an array of choices of an associate editor familiar with the paper's subject, it was assigned to an associate editor with no familiarity with it, who in turn selected reviewers similarly unfamiliar with it (and in some cases hostile to this approach). Given that the journal may publish more papers on this approach than any other, this was very disappointing. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay in sending our the manuscript for re-review, after which one of the reviewers criticized our work for not including material that was uploaded as supplementary text (but through some journal glitch, the material was not available to the reviewer). Overall, a minor comedy of errors that could have been avoided with the journal selecting an AE familiar with the subject of the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was above average for efficiency of submission and the length of time necessary to obtain a set of reviews. The reviews themselves were the typical mixed bag. After revision, the manuscript was promptly re-reviewed. In all, a reasonable process from submission to acceptance.
Motivation:
A rejection i ok when you receive a proper review and in short time.
Motivation:
I only have good experiences with Colorectal Disease. I received an email from the editor when the first review took some time without me asking for it.
Motivation:
The editorial process was fair and reflected referee's comments
Motivation:
The reviewers were not experts in the topic.
Motivation:
All the process was extremely rapid and editor's decision reflected referee's comments. Referees were very fair and constructive.
Motivation:
Good quality of reviewer's reports.
Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the reviews could have been shorter.
Motivation:
Journals whose goal is to disseminate results of general relevance for a given community (physics in this case) have a very thin line to decide what is relevant and what is not. This is unfortunate, but true. The rejection of our paper was not based on scientific considerations, since the referees agreed out results were correct, but based on their personal judgement on whether they were relevant enough or not. This is of course inevitable in this kind of peer reviewed process
Motivation:
Completely satisfied with editorial process of this journal. Delays were really my doing. Could have been published much more rapidly. At each step I knew where ms was in process. Pensoft staff were responsive as was scientific editor. Also, post acceptance, Pensoft staff helped me write an effective press release that garnered considerable attention for the publication on science news websites.
Motivation:
The editor and the administrator handled this very professionally.
Motivation:
The review process for my paper took very long to find an adequate referee, but the referee itself took little time time with the paper, and deemed it well written but uninteresting for the journal.
Motivation:
The reviewing time was perhaps longish, but the review was thorough, and improved the paper. Part of the reviewing time was during Christmas holidays, and I took as much time to implement the changes, so I think it is justified. Editorial changes were very straightforward to implement.
Motivation:
We are very disappointed about our submission to this journal. Instead of sending our revised version to reviewers again, the editor decided to reject our manuscript after three months of waiting, without any descent comments why so. He/she referred to 'substantial issues' but refused to specify these.
Motivation:
Communication with the journal was very efficient, and the peer-review process was rather quick. We are very satisfied about our submission to this journal.
Motivation:
Only one reviewer, quite short and poorly done. There was no criticism from the reviewer that could not have been addressed by a clarification of a very minor revision.
No other review report was provided.
No other review report was provided.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comment were insightful, and the requests were sensible. The process was relatively fast, for a journal in my domain. Overall, I am satisfied.
Motivation:
Very thorough referee reports; both referees helped to improve the paper by linking to related literature.
Motivation:
I think 6 months is too much time to accept a manuscript without external review
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected as the reviewers find the results not adequate to a journal that deals with actual power source. The reviewers contend that, given the depth of the Microbiology-related discussion in the manuscript, it was more suitable for a general Biotechnology Journal. I think the reviewers were correct and the Editor decision was the right one.
Motivation:
The Editor handles the submission very well. I strongly recommend this journal to those that work with the quantitative aspect of Biotechnology.