Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Handling was reasonably fast, and the report was honest and to the point. Referee also pointed out to few math typos to fix.
Motivation:
A reasonably quick turnover compared to other journals, and especially the decision not to send out the manuscript a second time actually speeds up things considerably.
Motivation:
The review reports received were interesting, however it was a bit strange that it ended with a rejection as they did not seem that negative.
Motivation:
Overall the process was nice. The only hickup was that editorial manager showed that the first round of reviews were completed approximately one and a half months before we were informed about the decision.
Motivation:
The two reviewers made fair points and the comments were very critical. We think they did not understand the innovative aspect of the manuscript, and the limitations we had.
Motivation:
The communication with the Editors was smooth. The submission process was easy. The reviewers read our paper carefully. Overall, great experience.
Motivation:
I don't think the reviewers gave careful enough consideration to our paper. We rewrote it nevertheless and published it elsewhere - this could have been done at the same journal, had they not rejected it. I have to note that the initial submission took quite a lot of work.
6.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was transparent with proper communication and responses. The editor, handling editor and assistants are very helpful. The reviewers are well qualified and provide valuable comments to improve the overall manuscript content and presentation. I will definitely recommend this journal for my colleagues.
Motivation:
Commendable reviews by the SIVP reviewers.
Motivation:
Very good and friendly editor. Nice handling of the manuscript. Gives own input as well.
Free Open-access journal!
Free Open-access journal!
Motivation:
It seems that the manuscript needs improved clarity as the editor and reviewers were confused about some fundamental aspects of the methods and results. Furthermore, an editor misinterpreted a figure and drew false conclusions about inconsistency in our data. As for the two reviewer reports, one reviewer recommended acceptance after minor revision, and another reviewer recommended more robust revisions which were all doable. Some of the revisions this reviewer categorized as "major" were actually editorial remarks about how to structure the order of paragraphs. Neither of the reviewers outright suggested rejection in their comments. At least all the comments were thorough and justified from the editors' and reviewers' points of view. Also the decision was a relatively quick turnaround.
Motivation:
The revision were good and helpful. The revision process was too fast.
Motivation:
First review round needed 6.4 weeks. This is not so short but I expected longer time would be required for this round. The comments from reviewers are good and contribute to improve my manuscript. Second review round needed 2 weeks and this is acceptable. New submission system they introduced is helpful. Some information of the reviewing progress can be obtained from the system.
Motivation:
The editor provided great insights into our manuscript to make it stronger. The submission process is smooth and swift.
Motivation:
The review process was very good
Motivation:
While the initial reviewer suggestions appeared reasonable and eventually improved the manuscript, the process in it's entirety was convoluted and unnecessarily taxing. To elucidate, there was a new editor introduced for each round of revisions (therefore, no revision was dealt with by the previous or same editor). Perhaps most glaringly, the third editor (handling the second revision) introduced a new reviewer as well as suggested changes of their own, which they did not come to evaluate themselves following the third revision.
Motivation:
The time the whole process took was reasonable, the editor was polite and informative.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.
The reviewers (referees) were adequate.