Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Policy Sciences was an excellent journal to work with. At least in our case, reviewers selected demonstrated knowledge of the specific research domain, and raised good questions. The editor is also very professional and timely in responses.
Motivation:
Of the two reviews, one recommended minor revisions and one recommended rejection. Both provided evidence for their recommendations, but the referee recommending rejections actually provided inaccurate evidence (some claims about the data that we could have corrected in an authors' response had we been given the opportunity). The editor rejected the manuscript. I do not think it is professional to reject a manuscript based on one reviewer's recommendation.
Motivation:
The single reviewer who advised rejection wrote about the "interesting" aspects of our ms, but then offered three minor objections (one of which was that a table was oddly placed!). The concerns could have been addressed in a revision so I did not feel the objections warranted rejection. I think we deserved a chance to respond to the reviewer's suggestions. When I asked the Editor for additional feedback I received no reply. Rejecting a ms on the basis of one poor quality referee report is unprofessional.
Motivation:
I have received useful reviews in a reasonable time for the first two rounds of submission. However, the third round of revisions took almost six months.
Motivation:
I have received decently useful comments in a reasonable time. Fast online publication before print. However, it may takes up to a year or more before the final version is published.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor works hard to get reviewers comply with the deadlines. In general, I believe he manages well exchanges between authors and reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviews contained no comments at all. They were only yes/no evaluations based on six criteria. Very disappointing... I even suspect - although I have no proof of this - that the review process is bogus. Besides, I had asked the editor to wait before publishing the article because I was waiting fo an official authorization from my organization, but he did not.
Motivation:
Very helpful Editor.
Motivation:
I have received very useful reviews in a short time. The online prepublication version of my article was published in less than 6 months following initial submission. Moreover, the Editors are open to suggestions and do not follow 'slavishly' reviewers' comments.
Motivation:
The review process was handled professionally with high-quality reports given by external reviewers.
Motivation:
Easy communication with the editorial office.
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
Help to try to improve and reach pubblication rather than quick rejection.
The comments and critics by reviewers were logical and objective
Motivation:
I was very disappointing to wait over three months for a rejection based on one flimsy review. A desk reject would have been much preferred. Alternatively I would have expected much more robust feedback, even if that led to a rejection.
Motivation:
Even when the reviews were in, it took the editor months to make/ communicate his/her decision.
Motivation:
relatively quick review procedure + editor aimed at publishing interesting paper ; and improving manuscripts, rather being an easy rejector
Motivation:
Professional and personal handling of the manuscript, fast review, helpfulness of journal staff. Especially the fast handling was brilliant compared to other journals!
Motivation:
The process from submission to decision is very efficient. The editor, Kevin Hewison, does a good job on it.
Motivation:
- online submittiance to Plant Mol Biol is simple and fast
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
- review process is transparent and relatively fast
- the selected anonymous reviewers provided helpful criticism with realistic chances to respond properly and in appropriate time
- the handling Editor was an expert in this field and obviously selected the reviewers carefully, also overall handling of the manuscript was very professional
Motivation:
The rejection per se was not the problem - that's life in science- but rather the EXTREME time lag from submission to rejection.
Motivation:
Overall, the publication process was fairly quick and well-streamlined. I particularly benefited from one of the two reviews my paper received, which was maximally useful in the revision process (clear, to the point, and pointing to highly relevant literature I was not familiar with before). This was a feature of the process that stood out (I realize there's an element of luck involved, of course).
Motivation:
Molecular Plant Pathology has a very rapid handling process, first decisions are usually reached within 4 weeks after submission. The editors often have a positive and constructive attitude.
Motivation:
Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.
Motivation:
Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory.
The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.
It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.
It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers recommended revision. This reviewer had read the text and the feedback was generally constructive and sensible. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript outright on grounds other than the content of the manuscript. The second reviewer's comments were a systematic deconstruction/rejection of the paper with little evidence that the paper had been read and the content understood. I contacted Russian Review and asked them to send me a copy of their instructions for peer reviewers and I was told they have none (!)
Motivation:
The referee reports were really clear and the communication with the editorial staff was smooth. The few queries I had were hadled quickly and professionally
Motivation:
I got two referees, one extremely helpful and one not-so-helpful. I am very satisfied overall with the delays and quality of reviews.