Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review was not fair.
Motivation:
I was pleased with the handling of my manuscript by this journal.
Motivation:
We received a totally biased report. When we pointed this out to the editor, he made it clear that he was not interested in objectivity either.
Motivation:
My personal decision is: never more sending anything to Physica B. Of course, other authors may have different experiences with the magazine, but potential authors (especially those from developing countries) should be warned that editors and reviewers are prone to presenting offensive reports (which I believe, are prejudice-driven) and no fellow scienteist deserves that.
Motivation:
My main problems were:
- extreme slowness,
- poor content of a single review after 8 months,
- I had a hard time understanding the text of the review (since a misspelled Spanish word remained in the text, I assume it was translated from Spanish by a translator program).
- extreme slowness,
- poor content of a single review after 8 months,
- I had a hard time understanding the text of the review (since a misspelled Spanish word remained in the text, I assume it was translated from Spanish by a translator program).
Motivation:
The guidelines are clear and the submission process is very straightforward and does not waste time (e.g., the author submits one PDF as an email to the editor). The reviews were prompt, constructive, and mostly fair. The handling editor also made a correct judgement call to ignore one of the unfounded concerns of a reviewer who did not understand a key point. The review was prompt and all emails throughout the process were clear. A refreshing experience.
Motivation:
Although the ms was rejected, the reviewers were fair and prompt in their responses. They offered a great deal of useful feedback which helped us revise and create a much better manuscript, which was accepted at the next journal we submitted to.
Motivation:
The reviewers were expert referees. They had many good and constructive comments. Even though the reviewers had certain substantive concerns in the first submission, they clearly saw the potential and were responsive to our significant efforts in revision. The editor was fair and prompt in responses.
Motivation:
One reviewer was exceedingly dismissive and elitist in their commentary. The ms was largely criticized for its brevity. It was specifically made brief to fit into the 'Report' format that Ecology is advertising. In the end, I think they were right to reject it. I have no hard feelings. But it was a long process and the reviews were so dismissive it should have been short.
Motivation:
The whole process was very fast (reviews and publication). I strongly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
Great job by the handling editor. A bit slow during the first round but incredible fast during the second round. The handling editor also improved the text a lot.
Motivation:
Knowledgeable reviewers responding with constructive criticism which improved the manuscript. Fairly swift review process.
Motivation:
The reviewer match could have been better, but the editorial process went very smooth
Motivation:
The referee did not read the paper but he/she rejected the paper with una sentence without motivation.
Motivation:
First review in which reviewer confessed having only read approximately half of the paper. That's it. And it took three years from submission to publication.
Motivation:
This was my first experience with this journal and I was totally impressed with the rapid responses and reasonable concerns.
Motivation:
The reviewers were experts in the topic of the manuscript and their comments were very insightful and helped to improve the paper in substantial points. The whole publication process was relatively fast.
Motivation:
Despite providing an array of choices of an associate editor familiar with the paper's subject, it was assigned to an associate editor with no familiarity with it, who in turn selected reviewers similarly unfamiliar with it (and in some cases hostile to this approach). Given that the journal may publish more papers on this approach than any other, this was very disappointing. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay in sending our the manuscript for re-review, after which one of the reviewers criticized our work for not including material that was uploaded as supplementary text (but through some journal glitch, the material was not available to the reviewer). Overall, a minor comedy of errors that could have been avoided with the journal selecting an AE familiar with the subject of the paper.
Motivation:
The review process was above average for efficiency of submission and the length of time necessary to obtain a set of reviews. The reviews themselves were the typical mixed bag. After revision, the manuscript was promptly re-reviewed. In all, a reasonable process from submission to acceptance.
Motivation:
A rejection i ok when you receive a proper review and in short time.
Motivation:
I only have good experiences with Colorectal Disease. I received an email from the editor when the first review took some time without me asking for it.
Motivation:
The editorial process was fair and reflected referee's comments
Motivation:
The reviewers were not experts in the topic.
Motivation:
All the process was extremely rapid and editor's decision reflected referee's comments. Referees were very fair and constructive.
Motivation:
Good quality of reviewer's reports.
Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Long review process : 8 months between the submission and the acceptance.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with the reviewing process, only the time for the reviews could have been shorter.
Motivation:
Journals whose goal is to disseminate results of general relevance for a given community (physics in this case) have a very thin line to decide what is relevant and what is not. This is unfortunate, but true. The rejection of our paper was not based on scientific considerations, since the referees agreed out results were correct, but based on their personal judgement on whether they were relevant enough or not. This is of course inevitable in this kind of peer reviewed process
Motivation:
Completely satisfied with editorial process of this journal. Delays were really my doing. Could have been published much more rapidly. At each step I knew where ms was in process. Pensoft staff were responsive as was scientific editor. Also, post acceptance, Pensoft staff helped me write an effective press release that garnered considerable attention for the publication on science news websites.
Motivation:
The editor and the administrator handled this very professionally.