Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was extremely slow and lacking in information. It was only after almost 3 months when I sent an email to the editor asking about the status of the article that I received the reviewer's comments and the process continued. However, after the first revision, the process until the publication of the first version online was very fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The review time was quite long and the time between acceptance and online publication of the article was extremely long, slow and without much information.
Motivation:
Decision was rapid and reviews were helpful in revising.
Motivation:
I took quite a while, but I can't blame the fault-seeking reviewer on the journal...
Motivation:
The review process was excellent; all reviewer comments have been helpful and valuable.
Motivation:
The review reports are beneficial and improve the quality.
The time till editorial decision of the second review round took some days, but overall I can recommend this journal.
Furthermore, the publication process has improved since the last submission to this journal and has been performed within two weeks.
The time till editorial decision of the second review round took some days, but overall I can recommend this journal.
Furthermore, the publication process has improved since the last submission to this journal and has been performed within two weeks.
Motivation:
The handling of the editor was excellent. The reviewers provided their comments very fast. The quality of the reviews were excellent and the overall communication very professional. All in all a perfect review process. Disclaimer: The manuscript was submitted as an invited paper as per invitation by the editor in chief.
Motivation:
The initial review only took a couple of months, which requested major revisions. Following revision and resubmission, the editor was unable to immediately secure the previous reviewers, but judged the revisions to be sufficient and only requested a few other minor revisions before final acceptance.
Motivation:
A bit lenghty review rounds but fair and tonthe point
Motivation:
The editors were very helpful and the manuscript was improved greatly during the review process.
Motivation:
The editor was very helpful during the process.
Motivation:
Scirev did not allow us to enter that the review process was as following:
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
Motivation:
Received 2 positive reviews and 1 negative review, but we were not given the opportunity to address the concerns of the negative review (despite the feedback being addressable).
Motivation:
Quick review and responsive editors! Reviewers were fair and helpful.
Motivation:
My experience with FIP in this case was pretty satisfactory. The editor was extremely efficient, and one of the reviewers provided me lots of helpful suggestions.