Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
9.3 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were extensive and well-argued, and for the most part contributed to improving the quality of the text. My overall impression is that the peer-review process was fast.
Motivation:
Too long waiting time until the article is sent to reviewers, and rejection decision.
Motivation:
Although the opinions from the reviewers seemed to suggest a minor revision of the work, the paper was fully rejected due to "The reviewers have advised against publication of your manuscript and I must therefore reject it at this time". The editor proposed the option to resubmit the manuscript after substantial changes
Motivation:
Standard handling, based on two reviewers who were not excited about the manuscript and did not find the evidence compelling enough, the editor decided not to wait for a third reviewer.
Motivation:
Fast handling, but report felt like referee has not spent much time on the paper.
Motivation:
Highly in-depth or detailed review that initially enhanced the manuscript following the presence of major issues. Subsequent reviews where then somewhat futile and potentially held up the publication process. N.B., studies on manual aiming/interception may likely go to or favour selection of one particular reviewer that provides useful insights, although incredibly "long-winded" and exhaustive to handle.
Motivation:
With credit to the editor, they tried tirelessly to contact and obtain reviewers, although all of which were solely suggested by the authors. It took in excess of 22 suggested reviewers before the final set of suggested reviewers had successfully volunteered. This seeming reluctance to review could be attributed in part to the unblinded review process.
Motivation:
- The review process was long
- The comments about technical requirements caused losing quite a bit of time before the paper was accepted.
- The comments about technical requirements caused losing quite a bit of time before the paper was accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was long and thorough. Most of the reviewer comments were constructive and served to improve the manuscript. There was an additional round of editorial comments at the end.
Motivation:
This review took a very long time. I wish there was more transparency around how long decisions take on average.
Motivation:
Surprisingly swift review and comments from two competent reviewers who have clearly read the manuscript.
Motivation:
IMR does thorough reviews and this manuscript was no exception. We're looking at a research note, and the reviews were rigorous. The length of what is a straightforward review process may be too much for some more junior colleagues where time (e.g. to graduation, to tenure) is critical.
Motivation:
The reviews were quick and detailed, and they definitely helped improve the paper. The associate editor handling the process is to be commended as well. However, the editor-in-chief does not seem to be a fit for this role: e.g. he did not respond to multiple emails and the process is mismanaged.
3.9 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewers pointed out the background of the research and theoretical issues. There were also many comments on statistical analysis. Revisions were difficult because of disagreements between myself and the reviewers on some methodologies. It was difficult because this journal has a short period of time between the receipt of a decision and the revision of the paper.
Motivation:
The experience with this journal is very positive. The process was very fast. The reviews gave their reports in ten days. The slowest part was the editorial decision after the major. We only had one round. If I had a question, they answered my questions very fast.The reviewers asked for more experiments and more literature review that improved a lot my paper. I am satisfied with this journal. I will submit new papers again for sure.
Motivation:
The editor provided great insights for polishing the manuscript in a sound manner.
Motivation:
The reviews ranged from overwhelmingly positive and short to detailed and very thorough. It is extremely valuable, especially to early-career researchers, to have the reviews and responses to reviews published alongside the preprint.
The only problem with the process was that it took over a month before the manuscript was sent out for review.
The only problem with the process was that it took over a month before the manuscript was sent out for review.
Motivation:
The reviews were respectful, thoughtful, and improved the manuscript. It was also much appreciated that the editor was involved in the review process, pointing out which reviewer comments were a priority. My only critique is that the review rounds (especially the first one) were relatively long. However, this may have been due to the summer holiday period.
Motivation:
The review process was fast, the reviews were of good quality and all communication with the editor was very clear.
Motivation:
Overall, we are happy with the review process: the reviewers that examine our paper took their time and made a detailed and knowledgeable review that [we think] improved our work. The only annoying thing about the review process was the initial waiting time. We waited for 16 weeks for the first round, while in the second one it was only 5 weeks. But again, in general, it was a good process.
Motivation:
The review process was fast. The editor handled the manuscript very professionally.
One major and one minor review in the first round. One reviewer accepted with minor corrections. The second one has a concern about the data sampling approach. Editor asked for the opinion of a third reviewer. The third reviewer accepted the author's reasoning and reply to the second reviewer's comments. Finally, it was accepted on June 8, 2022
One major and one minor review in the first round. One reviewer accepted with minor corrections. The second one has a concern about the data sampling approach. Editor asked for the opinion of a third reviewer. The third reviewer accepted the author's reasoning and reply to the second reviewer's comments. Finally, it was accepted on June 8, 2022