Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The handling editor did not do a good job. After the first review round we were informed that basically only layout/formatting/style had to be changed. However, after the second round the manuscript was rejected because the editor had now realized that the study had, according to her/him, major flaws.
Motivation:
Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
Motivation:
The reviewing process is always well-scheduled. Often responces come before the scheduled time.The reviewers are competent and helpful. The improvement of my papers after revision is tremendous.
Motivation:
There is no any editorial disciplne. The paper was kept 1 year. Very poor managerial skills of the editors and indifference to the work of other people.
Motivation:
Editor provided an extremely quick response and seemed to have the best interests of the authors as a priority.
Motivation:
Took nearly three months for the Editor to reject a manuscript without sending out to review.
Motivation:
High reputation of the Regional Editor, the reviewing and revising processes follow clear schedule, the reviewers are attentive, professional, helpful and polite.
Motivation:
Very agile review process. Reviewer's comments were irregular, some of them were very useful and insightful, others were trivial.
Motivation:
The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
Motivation:
A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.
Motivation:
Helpful comments from editor
Motivation:
Submission involved mailing paper version to Italy.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
Motivation:
The review was inconsistent in its outlook and poorly expressed. It should have been sent to a second reviewer.
Motivation:
While the editors originally promised feedback within a month and a half, and they only got back to me after three months, their message showed that the article went through a proper internal review process and the reasons for rejections were fair and absolutely acceptable.
Motivation:
It should not take 4 months to get a decision.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected within three days, we initially submitted a presubmission inquiry on March 13 but never received a response.
Motivation:
The reviews we received were quite positive and constructive, but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.