Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We had to revise our paper two times before it was accepted. First, we received two reviews. After revising the manuscript, it was accepted by one but declined by the other reviewer. The editor asked a third person to review the manuscript who also suggested to accept it. The editor, therefore, gave us a second opportunity to revise the manuscript. We did and after this it was accepted, even though one reviewer still wasn't completelly convinced by the paper. The second review process was quite long, but when we asked the editorial staff we always received prompt and helpful answers.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and quick. Reviewers gave us constructive feedback which was clear and easy to address. I truly believe that both reviewers gave comments that ameliorated the manuscript. I would definitely resubmit to this journal.
Motivation:
Very helpful and timely reviews, very short time to submission. Great journal overall.
32.7 weeks
50.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Editors are kind and professional. I feel the comments of reviewer(s) improved my paper. But the waiting time is excessively long with this journal.
Motivation:
Even though the result was rejection, the reviews were of excellent quality. The editor apologized for the unusually long review process.
Motivation:
I decided to withdraw the manuscript after nearly 8 months of waiting for a decision. When I checked in after 5 and 7 months, both time the editors said the second reviewer was late and they would try to find a new one. The one review I did get was very short but positive.
Motivation:
The reviewers made very helpful comments in both review rounds and the manuscript was improved. The total handling lasted about 6 mo and we are satisfied with the result.
Motivation:
From the perspective of the author, an average review. The reviews were all very detailed. Overall, failed to enthuse the reviewers.
Motivation:
First I was very surprise to see that we had 1 unique reviewer and his first statement was that the topic was complex (so obviously not someone from the field). He made a lot of criticism but we were able to make corrections and provide more data. After a first round, the reviewer was still unsatisfied and ask for more experiment to be done (that were not asked at first). Even though surprising, we have done all the corrections required by the referee but he finally decided to reject the paper for an unclear reason ("the work has no clear focus (???)") . Anyway, having 1 biased reviewer just demonstrates the poor rigour of the journal.
Motivation:
Initial reviews were quite hostile and, frankly, unprofessional. However, we were able to secure a second round of reviews after a successful appeal to the editor.
Motivation:
Extremely quick, smooth review process
Motivation:
Lightning fast review times! A very smooth process. However the two reviewers were within a single subfield, which related to our topic but was not the central subfield it was speaking to.
Motivation:
First decision was fast. Review comments wasn't mentioned.
Motivation:
The overall review process and quality of review questions were good. However, the total manuscript handling time was quite long.
Motivation:
Our experience with this journal was terrible. We waited over 20 weeks to receive an immediate reject with the most generic justification possible. We tried to get in touch by e-mail with the journal several times and got no response.
Motivation:
The reviews contained some helpful comments, which will help improve the manuscript further.
Motivation:
Efficient review process, with helpful reviewers' comments.
Motivation:
Very fast.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
The submitted manuscript was well analyzed and appropriately criticized by the reviewers.
Although I felt these reviewers will be our competitors, but the comments are reasonable.
Motivation:
Quick and efficient review process, with clear reasons for the rejection.
Motivation:
Finalizing a decision based on the comments of a single reviewer based on a few benchmark results with regard to its all round performance following days of testing and validation and the inability and untimely action of the associate editor raises many questions. The reviewers are absolutely useless with their generalized comments (Most comments are very vague with the comment that a very huge gap exists between the results and conclusion for a manuscript of about 90 pages with 50K words) and expecting the duck to lay golden eggs without feeding it properly.