Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected without in-depth review process, the journal did nor provide any scientific reasons for the rejection. The editors have felt that the scope of the manuscript would fit to a more applied and specilized journal.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.
Motivation:
The review process was prompt and correct and based on the comments the manuscripts was greatly improved.
Motivation:
The manuscript should have been sent out for external assessment. Obviously the editor believes the readership will not benefit from the contents. I have experienced this before and the article is now a "highly cited" (405 citations to date) in the area.
Motivation:
My manuscript was handled very well by this journal. The review process was quite quick and the reviewer's comments were of a high standard, and fair. After addressing the comments the quality of my manuscript was greatly improved. I would recommend this journal without reservation.
Motivation:
The editors obviously did not read the paper but only relied upon external reports. One report completely ignored what I said the paper was about and based his comments on his own participation in conferences whose proceedings were not published. I said the paper was about commercialized agriculture, the reviewer wanted to talk about food subsistence. That said, the report said the paper was well-written and scholarly. The main shortcoming was that I did not take account of his own work and point of view (which was unpublished). The second reviewer's comments were completely out of touch with reality and made no sense. I previously had published a dozen or so articles in this journal since 1992, but the editor and perhaps editorial board have changed recently.