Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 2.0 days
Drawn back
5.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After the first round of review, we requested more time to make modifications than the 10 days proposed. The editor was quick in replying and accepting our request.
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The only imperfection was in the first review round, in which one of the reviewers sent a review about a different paper from ours. The editor was quick in contacting the reviewer and asking for the correct review.
Motivation:
Reviewers requested spot corrections, and the response time was fast.
Motivation:
Knowledgeable and fair review. Evidently engaged reviewers. Blind review process
Motivation:
The whole process took a bit longer than expected, mostly because it is getting harder and harder to get reviewers that are willing to peer-review the publications. This might be an overall problem in the scientific community, especially for journals that, even though have a high impact factor, are not that "well known". Overall, we were in contact with the editors, who kept us updated on the review process.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
Motivation:
The editorial process is quick, and the review reports are of high quality. One reviewer gave substantial comments that improved our paper a lot, although it did take us much effort.
Motivation:
Smooth submissions process and easy to communicate with editorial office. Some of the reviewer reports were not relevant to the aim of the study.
Motivation:
The editor was very supportive and gave me extension during the second review round as I was hospitalized and could not meet the deadline.
Motivation:
Relatively quick process, three short but excellent reviews, plus comments by the editor. The editor clearly went with the only negative reviewer, but the overall process is such that we can quickly move on with the manuscript.
Motivation:
The editors were by far the best I have worked with. They actually met with us to provide detailed suggestions about how to improve the manuscript. I highly recommend submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was rather quick and smooth.
The editorial manager system was a little bit tricky.
The editorial manager system was a little bit tricky.
Motivation:
This was easily the best experience I've had with a journal and reviewers who were critical yet complimentary of our work. We admit this may have been an anomaly with the editor being well-versed in the theoretical approaches used in our paper, but we would resubmit here in a heartbeat and would recommend others to consider this journal as well.