Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Two very positive reviews, 1 identified issues that we could not fix, so the editor chose to reject the paper.
Motivation:
The editorial process was really smooth and speedy. The journal kept us updated with the process at each different stage using email and regular updating of their system.
Motivation:
The way the manuscript was handled was really good. The editor kept us updated at every stage and the time taken for revision was short compared to some other pure mathematics journals.
Motivation:
Rapid, helpful, constructive reviews and speedy editorial process. Great experience overall.
8.9 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Journal is a good choice for papers around "sustainability in higher education" that are not good fits for other journals. Ours was a case study, and Journal was perfect for the interdisciplinary topic.
Positives: Peer reviewers were reasonable and seemed knowledgeable about the topic. Editors were fair and helpful throughout process. Journal has genuine peer review which is constructive. Publication policies (e.g., self archiving) are well done and ethical. Journal has reasonable expectations for novelty/impact; review is more about quality of the work.
Negatives: Inconsistent policies, especially with the web upload process vs. reviewer/editor comments. Some of editor response times were rather slow. Reviewer comments did not harm the manuscript but I don't think they improved it much either. Review comments were mostly about stuff like "add a literature review" and "add a conclusions section", which is more stylistic in my view.
Positives: Peer reviewers were reasonable and seemed knowledgeable about the topic. Editors were fair and helpful throughout process. Journal has genuine peer review which is constructive. Publication policies (e.g., self archiving) are well done and ethical. Journal has reasonable expectations for novelty/impact; review is more about quality of the work.
Negatives: Inconsistent policies, especially with the web upload process vs. reviewer/editor comments. Some of editor response times were rather slow. Reviewer comments did not harm the manuscript but I don't think they improved it much either. Review comments were mostly about stuff like "add a literature review" and "add a conclusions section", which is more stylistic in my view.
7.4 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Fast handling of the manuscript. Review was helpful in fixing some minor mistakes.
Motivation:
Fast and professional handling of my manuscript.
Motivation:
The peer-review process is relatively fast, a maximum of one month each round. However, It takes one week after submission for them to send an email regarding a video award. It seems like the review process only starts after this email. In my submission, the associated editor of the second round was not the same as the initial submission. New reviewers were assigned, which resulted in an unnecessary 3rd round. The quality of the reviewers varies, but I found their comments very useful. They had read the paper and tried their best to understand. For those in the final stage of the Ph.D., this journal is very helpful since we cannot wait, like, four months for a first feedback.
5.4 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 2.0 days
Drawn back