Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was fast and fair. It improved the clarity of the final manuscript and the whole publicación process was done in only 6 months.
Motivation:
Referee report was unnecessarily offensive. Editors performed adequately.
Motivation:
Very extense but constructive comments for first revision. I would have liked better to receive a faster answer for first revision, but after that the process was quite agile.
Motivation:
The review was thorough and comprehensive, well worth the time I had to wait for it.
Motivation:
I think the reviewers did a very good job at reviewing the paper, which has improved substantially before publication. The reviewing process took a relatively long time, but it was overall satisfactory.
Motivation:
This was a paper based on an invited oral presentation. One review was brief and identified salient points that the reviewer valued. The second review was longer, asked some good questions and made some helpful suggestions that I could easily respond to with minor revisions.
Motivation:
Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Motivation:
Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Motivation:
The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Motivation:
I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
Motivation:
I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviews contained no comments at all. They were only yes/no evaluations based on six criteria. Very disappointing... I even suspect - although I have no proof of this - that the review process is bogus. Besides, I had asked the editor to wait before publishing the article because I was waiting fo an official authorization from my organization, but he did not.
Motivation:
Very helpful Editor.
Motivation:
I have received very useful reviews in a short time. The online prepublication version of my article was published in less than 6 months following initial submission. Moreover, the Editors are open to suggestions and do not follow 'slavishly' reviewers' comments.
Motivation:
The review process was handled professionally with high-quality reports given by external reviewers.
Motivation:
Easy communication with the editorial office.
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
Motivation:
I was very disappointing to wait over three months for a rejection based on one flimsy review. A desk reject would have been much preferred. Alternatively I would have expected much more robust feedback, even if that led to a rejection.
Motivation:
Even when the reviews were in, it took the editor months to make/ communicate his/her decision.
Motivation:
relatively quick review procedure + editor aimed at publishing interesting paper ; and improving manuscripts, rather being an easy rejector
Motivation:
Professional and personal handling of the manuscript, fast review, helpfulness of journal staff. Especially the fast handling was brilliant compared to other journals!
Motivation:
The process from submission to decision is very efficient. The editor, Kevin Hewison, does a good job on it.
Motivation:
- online submittiance to Plant Mol Biol is simple and fast
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
Motivation:
The rejection per se was not the problem - that's life in science- but rather the EXTREME time lag from submission to rejection.