Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
super fast and smooth process, I was positively surprised
Motivation:
One reviewer seemed positive, the other did not understand the methods and seemed not to understand that it was a research note (lots of comments on more literature, etc)
Motivation:
Process was not very slow (review period included Holiday season). The editorial assistants were picky with regression table styles but everything else was smooth. Reviewer quality was high.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were negative so they did not wait for the third to make things quicker. Reviewers were harsh but fair and all was done relatively quickly.
Motivation:
Acta Mat is one of the top journals in the field of materials science. It took immense efforts, patience and work to finally get it accepted.
Motivation:
Fast but not as much as they promise.
4.1 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Fast review process. Reviewers were celarly experts in the field and the comments were constructive. Responsive production staff. My second publication here and will submit again.
Motivation:
The reviewers are not professional in my field.
Motivation:
The reviewers and chief editor were great. I really appreciate their hard work.
Motivation:
One reviewer had obviously competing interests and claimed the work has been done before by some researchers (his group). We got no chance to address the novelty through the revision (while it has been also provided in the manuscript clearly).
Motivation:
The handling editor made different suggestions on how to improve the paper and how to complete the data used to better support the interpretation, welcoming a future submission of the revised work. Reasonnable time delay and constructive feedbacks.
Motivation:
Time till first response was around average for my field. The review reports were constructive and improved the article. Proofreading and production process was fast and the editorial office was responsive.
Motivation:
first editorial processing and decision to send to reviewers took quite long
6.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
fast processing, useful reviewer comments
Motivation:
Considering the number of manuscripts received by the journal we were surprised by the speed of the process. Reviewers made fair comments that helped improve the manuscript. The copy editing phase was not as smooth with a lot of mistakes being added by the editorial team during the galley proof stage. Had we not examined these proofs quite closely, the paper might have been published with these issues.
14.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The revision time was acceptable, but the time between the revision and the production was long; 1.5 months after the acceptance, the paper still needed to be entered into the production process.
Motivation:
The first review rounds took a long time though it improved the paper substantially.
Motivation:
I am satisfied and proud that my writing was published, even though the review process is very difficult but the articles are of higher quality
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers are very professional and provide a lot of useful advice and questions. And our paper was rejected because of some theory and sample size problems.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided helpful comments that improved our article. The editorial staff was efficient and provided us with an extension in order for us to have enough time to perform updated analyses.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to three reviewers, who contributed very constructive and excellent comments. The editors also provided their take on the reviewers' comments and helpful suggestions. The process was very quick and professional.
Motivation:
This journal provides a swift review process and constructive feedback for manuscript revision. It was a good experience for the whole submission process.