Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After the first round of review, we requested more time to make modifications than the 10 days proposed. The editor was quick in replying and accepting our request.
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The only imperfection was in the first review round, in which one of the reviewers sent a review about a different paper from ours. The editor was quick in contacting the reviewer and asking for the correct review.
Motivation:
Reviewers requested spot corrections, and the response time was fast.
Motivation:
Knowledgeable and fair review. Evidently engaged reviewers. Blind review process
Motivation:
The whole process took a bit longer than expected, mostly because it is getting harder and harder to get reviewers that are willing to peer-review the publications. This might be an overall problem in the scientific community, especially for journals that, even though have a high impact factor, are not that "well known". Overall, we were in contact with the editors, who kept us updated on the review process.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
Motivation:
The editorial process is quick, and the review reports are of high quality. One reviewer gave substantial comments that improved our paper a lot, although it did take us much effort.
Motivation:
Smooth submissions process and easy to communicate with editorial office. Some of the reviewer reports were not relevant to the aim of the study.
Motivation:
The editor was very supportive and gave me extension during the second review round as I was hospitalized and could not meet the deadline.
Motivation:
Relatively quick process, three short but excellent reviews, plus comments by the editor. The editor clearly went with the only negative reviewer, but the overall process is such that we can quickly move on with the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editors were by far the best I have worked with. They actually met with us to provide detailed suggestions about how to improve the manuscript. I highly recommend submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was rather quick and smooth.
The editorial manager system was a little bit tricky.
The editorial manager system was a little bit tricky.
Motivation:
This was easily the best experience I've had with a journal and reviewers who were critical yet complimentary of our work. We admit this may have been an anomaly with the editor being well-versed in the theoretical approaches used in our paper, but we would resubmit here in a heartbeat and would recommend others to consider this journal as well.
Motivation:
Overall, this was a positive experience. The paper is stronger as a result of the revisions.
Motivation:
The assignment of the editor, reviewers and all the processes after that were seamless, fast, and friendly.
Motivation:
Review process was quick and we regularly received updates on the current status. One of the reviews was very good and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The entire process in this journal takes very long although they are also very generous with the time given to the authors for revising the manuscript. The quality of the reviews was good and the handling editor additionally helped us with their statements (especially concerning contradictory reviewer statements).
Motivation:
Editor should had made the decision after the second round of reviews.
Motivation:
Fine handling of the manuscript and reviews from scholars who work on the same topic. Not the fastest review process.
Motivation:
Pretty smooth process from beginning to end; revisions helped to clarify a few things.