Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review reports are of good quality overall speaking, and the review process took moderate time length.
Motivation:
The editor handled our manuscript professionally. Comments from the reviewers are very helpful in strengthening the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall, I was pleased with the process and outcome. Great and personable editor!
Motivation:
Very fast, fair comments. The editor also provided useful comments on the manuscript, and made a very fast decision.
Motivation:
The editor was professional and the reviewer was shown to extract errors in the manuscript.
Motivation:
smooth and fast process with high-quality reports
Motivation:
The editor did not give any comment, fully referring to the reviewers, and did not even sign by name. The reviews were not very critical, but the manuscript was rejected outright. On the positive side, the process was very fast.
Motivation:
The swift communication from editors facilitates a smooth publication journey, while the detailed and relevant feedback from expert reviewers enhances the scholarly value of each article.
Motivation:
Transfered from Advanced science with peer-reviewed comments, we directly submitted revised manuscript to Small. Editor then asked for a minor revision and accepted it.
Motivation:
Handling of manuscript was very good, review time was fast, reviews had a good quality and reviewers were interested in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
A mini review for the special issue hosted by a colleague, very quick review process and two reviewers showed much interests in our paper. Minor revision has been made before acception by reviewers. APC is discounted. A pleasant publish experience. If APC are lower, i will consider submitting other works to this journal.
Motivation:
This journal has a very broad range of subjects and has numerous editors. Including the names of editors relevant to your field in your cover letter address or potential reviewers may make the process go more smoothly. In my case, I was happy to have an editor assigned to a well-known researcher in my field whose name I included in my cover letter.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.