Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I was happy with the editorial process, but the comments I received from the reviewer were unfortunately not useful. The criticism stayed at a general level and included very little constructive feedback. For example, the reviewer indicated that there were too few references, "not all reviews on the subject are referred to", but gave no specific information on these missing pieces.
Motivation:
We were very happy that the editor informed us very quickly (the same day!) that our contribution was not fit for the journal. We also liked the argumentation of the quick reply, namely that we could submit it elsewhere without delay.
Motivation:
We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail.
Motivation:
Six months after submission, I emailed the editorial office to enquire about the status of my paper. The contact person claimed she emailed a reviewer and never heard from them. I wanted to withdraw my paper. But she encouraged me to wait because she assigned a new reviewer. After almost 2 months, I get an email saying "Further to a discussion with the editors your article has been declined for publication." No reviewer reports whatsover. So I have no idea how many reviewers reviewed the paper. I have no idea what their comments were. Absolutely horrible experience. I will never encourage anyone to submit their paper to this journal.
Motivation:
Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process.
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and relatively quick. My only frustration was that the editor made a lot of unnecessary minor edits after acceptance. Some of these altered the meaning of sentences and resulted in inaccuracies that I had to address.
Motivation:
In the first round the editor(s) failed to send me the full text of one of the reviewers' reports. It took a number of months before the editorial team realised this, which delayed the process substantially. The time from acceptance to publication was 8 months.
Motivation:
It took awhile (2 months) to hear back from reviewers, but otherwise great experience.
Motivation:
The turnaround time was relatively short and as "advertized". The reviews were polite and constructive in tone, and focused primarily on shortcomings. While the reviewers had a few suggestions for improvement, they could have been more developmental. Some of the criticisms appeared too demanding to me.
Motivation:
The editor explained their decision in detail. The feedback was constructive and focused on both strengths and weaknesses. The comments by the editor and the reviewers contained specific advice on how I could proceed with the manuscript, including references.
Motivation:
The reason that the manuscript does not fit the journal made no sense to me, especially because it had been under review at two similar journals.
Motivation:
The feedback was polite. The editor provided suggestions on where to send the manuscript. The single review consisted of two paragraphs.
Motivation:
very quick immediate rejection, so no time lost
Motivation:
No reasons for desk reject except for "fit"; it took the editor more than 30 days to come to that decision
10.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After 5 1/2 months in submission the paper had not even been sent to reviewers. On contacting them the publishers said there was a considerable backlog following 'editorial restructuring' and that they couldn't predict a review time. Messages sent to the editorial team received no reply at all... As I wanted my research reported this year I withdrew the paper and resubmitted to another journal. Health Policy is a quality journal, but it's clearly having difficulties at the present time and I would think twice about submitting any time critical papers to them
Motivation:
Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.
Motivation:
Fast handling by the editors and reviewers. The reviewers were familiar wtih the topic.
Motivation:
Journal follows somewhat unorthodox and quite extensive style guidelines, which have to be adhered to before a manuscript is considered.
Motivation:
Experience was very pleasing. Even though the initial requirements (all figures in *.eps format etc) were painful the speed of the review process and handling by the editor were excellent.
Motivation:
The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.