Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I have applied a complicated mathematical method in a geostistical application. The reviwers was familiar with application but unfamiliar with my new approach basics. Hence I have some difficulties with them. However I should emphasize that some of their comments was usefull and help improve my paper.
Motivation:
Lengthy reviewing time.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
Motivation:
The review was fair and constructive, and special appreciation for the linguistic assistance for non native English speaking author..
Motivation:
The assistant editor was very thorough, both scientifically and with respect to writing. The manuscript was significantly improved by interaction with this assistant editor, and further improvements were made by the chief editor.
Motivation:
Everything was fine and smooth regardless of final outcome, the way is supposed to be
Motivation:
The review process was very rigorous, and handled in a very professional manner. I received some very challenging reviews, but the consequence is that the articles were greatly improved, over-broad assertions were pruned back to defensible positions, and the subject matter was completely vetted. Given that the articles constituted a long-view historical treatment of research developments of hundreds of researchers, it was very important to get everything right. The Computer Music Journal and the MIT Press were good allies in the process of obtaining the very best work from me.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast even with four reviewers. The total process from first submission to acceptance after revision took only about ten days. However, I have recently had another paper accepted by the journal (not yet published) and the review process was a bit longer with only two reviwers. But still fast (I will submit ratings here for that review process later)
Motivation:
Serious journal that respect the timing
Motivation:
They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
Motivation:
waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
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.