Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Serious journal that respect the timing
Motivation:
They spend 4 months with my article without any feedback. Later it was accepted.
Motivation:
The review process was too long. The journal did not respond my emails when I asked for an update of the manuscript status.
Motivation:
waiting for 9-11 month to show our paper online is not productive for a researchers.
Motivation:
This is the first time I submitted a research paper to MST and I am fully satisfied with the review process as well as editorial assistance.
Motivation:
Comunication with Editorial office was very good.
Motivation:
Very serious and professional in all the steps
Motivation:
The Editor did not realise that the reviewer were not competent in the field
Motivation:
The Review of the manuscript was constructive and improved our work.
Motivation:
From submission to final acceptance through reviews everything was highly satisfactory but they failed to give author's copy even after repeated mails to the journal office. Finally I had to get in touch with the Editor-in-chief and one of his assistance sent me a .pdf of my article.
Motivation:
Very quick and professional review process.
Motivation:
The best thing with this journal :
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
1. Faster review process
2. Better feedback after review
Motivation:
The review process of this journal is satisfing.
Motivation:
The suggestions of reviewers were correct, very useful and well formulated. The editor also made good suggestions on the last version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Thanks
Motivation:
Thanks
Motivation:
The editors were very picky regarding permissions from journals for using data from other articles in a table (explicitly identified as being from another source). it was difficult to get the permissions (especially from Elsevier) and this added about a month onto the process after the editorial acceptance of the article
Motivation:
The overall experience was very good. Reviewers provided constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Waiting ca. 2 month for a review response was acceptable, given the length of the manuscript. At the proof stage, correspondence with the editorial team helped a lot to quickly finalize the layout.
Motivation:
It took extremely long, the internet system did not work properly, I had to send emails many times to hear back about my manuscript, etc...
Motivation:
Given the great difference in the opinions of the two reviewers, the editor made a huge effort to personally check the MS, acting as third reviewer and reconsidering the work as worth to be published.
Motivation:
the overall process was OK. The review was very constructive. It just took too long between the acceptance and the proofs. Publication occured even at a later stage (early 2011) although the corrected proofs were already online since october, 26 2010.
Motivation:
The editors of this journal were very responsive to my questions and concerns; they responded quickly to any emails I sent and were easy to work with. The review process was efficient as well. This was an invited submission to a special issue (though it still went out for peer review), so I'm not sure if the process was any different than a standard submission.