Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
My experience with the review process for this journal was very pleasant. I received helpful feedback in a timely manner that ultimately improved the final version of the accepted manuscript.
51.7 weeks
56.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
In this case, it went on well. In another manuscript, reviewing time went more than 20 weeks.
3.1 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Accepted
18.3 weeks
28.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
3.0 / 5.0
Accepted
4.7 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
Nature set a record in my lab by rejecting our paper in under 3 hours. I sincerely doubt that the editor carefully considered whether to send our paper out to review.
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1.0 / 5.0
4.0 / 5.0
Rejected
Motivation:
At the time eLife was billing a fast turnaround time and I didn't get that. The office were good about communicating with me about the delays in reviewing the paper. Overall the review process was great. The reports were synthesized into a sensible decision letter, moreover the reviews are published online at this journal.
Motivation:
Fast turn around between submission, approval and publication.
12.7 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
This experience was revealed that choosing the experienced and efficient high scientific level reviewers is the key to make efficient reviewing process.
Motivation:
JCB has an academic Ed Board. The Editor who handled my paper did a great job. We had two positive reviews and one negative one. The Editor gave us clear guidance on what we needed to do to revise our paper. This included instructions to ignore the negative reviewer. Overall the process was fair, balanced and I will submit more work there.
5.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5.0 / 5.0
5.0 / 5.0
Accepted
Motivation:
First, make sure your expression and discussion concise and precise.
Second, introduce your experiments or models, the more detailed the better.
Last but not least, the papers with innovation are encouraged.
Second, introduce your experiments or models, the more detailed the better.
Last but not least, the papers with innovation are encouraged.
Motivation:
It was fast and smooth process.
Motivation:
Fast and smooth process