Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Turn around time with reviewers was very quick, queries on initial submission were answered on the same day. Automated submission system is very efficient.
Motivation:
The Biochemical Journal handles the submission/review/revision and decision process extremely professionally. Email confirmations from the automated submission system are clear and interaction with the staff generates quick and efficient replies.
Motivation:
Acting as an editor myself I know that it becomes more and more complicated to identify colleagues willing to act as a reviewer and to respond in time. Therefore editors tend to rely on "fast responding colleagues". These have developed some routine in handling manuscripts, but they are not necessarily outstanding experts in the field of research an individual manuscript is dealing with. Therefore it may be quite complicated to have a manuscript accepted if its topic is not trendy or if it is trans-disciplinary rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
Motivation:
Excellent communication. Good reviews. Great editorial work
Motivation:
The whole process was very fast and very efficient. The Editor himself also suggested small changes that improved the manuscript. I felt that my manuscript received all the necessary attention, and the proofs had almost no errors. I am very happy with the whole procedure.
Motivation:
Reviewers were very helpful, clearly well chosen for style of paper.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Timely production, on par with other journals and much better than some. Delay between acceptance and production was to a large extend due to the time that I took to make corrections.
Motivation:
I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 3 months I ma still waiting, editor says that the reviewer are busy and they will get to my paper soon, that was 3 weeks ago, now entering 4 month sinc esubmission. Prior experience, took 9 months for reviews abd finally was rejected, only to be publish withni 6 weeks in another journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers and Editor are really professionnal and respectfull. I submitted many times to this journal and I was always treated professionnally
Motivation:
My experience with Cognitive Systems Research Journal was very positive. The review process improved the article and I was very pleased with the final result.
Motivation:
Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.
Motivation:
Good journal, fast turn around. Very satisfied.
Motivation:
Review was expedient, transparent, and the reviews where well founded.
Motivation:
A review report was sent me after several months from submission following to solicitation. Minor revision was requested. The editorial decision came after 1.5 mo. following to solicitation.
Motivation:
The process of submission was not through the on-line system; instead, it was in-person conversation with the editor himself. Very good speed and quality.
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.