Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
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.