Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
This is a good journal. The Editor and reviews are very good.
Motivation:
GEC kept me well-informed throughout the review process - I was constantly getting emails about the status of the manuscript and I felt that the review process was timely. Two minor points to add however. First, I would have liked to have known at the outset whether or not it had been sent out for review as there's quite a long wait at that point where you're not sure whether it's been immediately rejected or not. Second, I also tried and failed to get advance warning of final publication so that my institute could do some PR, but despite emails requesting notice, that didn't happen - I just got an email saying it was published already.
Motivation:
Manuscript rejected without explanation despite clear relevance. Very disappointed with the process. Contacted the editors politely and got a disdainful response.
26.0 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Review process was relatively fast and thorough. Needed to convert the (accepted) paper from LaTeX to Word, but otherwise went well.
Motivation:
A paper that was clearly fit for the journal was rejected without review and with a generic email stating that it might be because of 3 reasons, none of which apply to the paper.
Motivation:
One of the two reviewers seemed not to have correctly understood the paper, maybe dedicated too little time, and the critiques in the report were therefore not very useful.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled rather quick. Only the final decision (after minor revisions) took a while. The comments given were usefull and relevant. The journal stresses the importance of correct use of English language and formatting (they even requested to consult external editing service), although the document with guidelines is not very complete and written in a clear way.
Motivation:
Dr. Huising and Dr. Klemes do great job in taking the manuscript, handling and finding reviewers and maintaining a fast communication in all aspects. JCP was the most efficient journal that I have worked with so far. I can assure you that you will receive iniitial feedback in less than 2-2.5 months
Motivation:
It took very very long (16~18 months) for the first review for two of my papers in this journal (both accepted with little delay after first review). However, another paper took only 5 months from first submission to publication. So it was a mixed bag.
Motivation:
Fast review and reviewers were really into the topic with very helpful comments.
Motivation:
Review process was fast. Reviewers did not understand the paper very well, it might be because it was a bit offtopic. Also, both reviewers contradicted each other.
Motivation:
Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.