Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very nice experience except for the long review process.
10.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
One of the reviewers did not fully agree to our data interpretation and asked us to reorganize the manuscript. We fully addressed his concerns in the revision, but I guess he would be still unhappy with our manuscript. The associate editor put aside his comments (which we couldn't find in the decision letter) and accepted our manuscript.
Motivation:
Fast rejection with few / no reasons
Motivation:
Submission-to-publication time was eight months. Our first submission somehow got 'lost' in the system. Overall, the time our manuscript spent with the editors was way too long.
17.3 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
IJGIS has a great reputation in the field for a reason. The editors were meticulous and responsible (checking each paper in detail, together with the code and data) and have promptly replied to our emails, and the reviewers were pretty good: insightful, fair, comprehensive, and genuinely inclined to help to improve the paper and see it published. Their comments have certainly contributed to improving the paper. The downsides are that the first round of the reviews took more time than it should (4 months), and that the publisher (Taylor & Francis) took a long time to publish the paper online, and made many mistakes in the proof of the PDF, e.g. they added errors that didn't exist in the submitted version, and they sent us a proof with the repeated errors despite being clearly instructed to fix them. The provided link for free sharing of the article is valid for only 50 readers, in contrast with some other publishers that provide unlimited access during the first month or so. We considered going open access, but the OA fee is unreasonably high. In conclusion, great journal and great editors, but bad publisher.
Motivation:
Very great journal, and very great submission experience
Motivation:
Great experience - Very detailed review comments and helpful for improving the manuscript; communication with the editor was great and the overall review process was efficient.
Motivation:
Single reviewer, and no editorial input
Motivation:
The editorial office was very fast and the reviewers were helpful. I was unexpectedly good.
Motivation:
After about 2 months evaluation, the manuscript was sent to 6 reviewers, 3 of them agreed that this work is of great importance and should be published with some revision. 1 of them required a major revision. 2 of them strongly disagree considering the novelty. After resubmitting the revision, the editor sent it to the 3 of them. And the reviewers agreed that the mentioned questions were all solved, but still strongly disagree considering the novelty. The two reviewers hold a strong prejudice on our work at the very beginning, which means no matter what we do is useless. I don't think that making the final decision only based on these 2 reviewers are reasonable. I just feel very disappointed.
Motivation:
One month after submission the journal status was still "Submitted to Journal", so I asked about the progress on the submission. After further two weeks I received the rejection.
Motivation:
The Editorial Advisory Board desk rejected the paper, informing us it was not suitable for publication in the journal because it did not present a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. The paper would not merit publication in a leading journal like Research Policy.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and the reviewers really contributed to the improvement of the paper. The only criticism I have is that in the second round of revisions, one reviewer criticized an addition that the other reviewer asked. So the editor could have intervened in this case to settle the situation before getting the reviews back to the authors. Other than that, I really appreciated the review process and the quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
Very fast!
Motivation:
The age of my population is too young to be adolescents
Motivation:
The reviewers raised minor issues that we addressed in the first round. The editor didn't give a clear accept/reject response even after we insisted. They said our article may be better for another JMIR journal without mentioning any specific concern why. The whole experience with JMIR was very unusual compared to other journals.
Motivation:
Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: the editors were not able to perceive the importance of the work
Motivation:
Fast and courteous response, somewhat constructive, a positive experience despite the desk rejection.
Motivation:
I find it unacceptable that an editor sits on a paper for 13.4 weeks before desk rejecting it. This is a waste of valuable time for hard working authors. I will probably no longer target Land Use Policy.
Motivation:
Only 2 reviewers gave comment and one of them with one scentence comment which is not enough.
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously faulty as they neglected the common knowledge in the field. The second review was just one sentence. This is but a joke.
Motivation:
A waste of time. The editorial team sent me back the article twice asking me to fix some time-consuming useless details and to provide a PRISMA document filled. I spent few days working on these tasks, and then the article got an immediate desk-rejection. Time wasted.
Motivation:
The journal maintained reasonable time for handling the paper. The reviews were professional and constructive. The editor suggested some corrections to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
We had four reviewers. All of them thought the article was interesting and methodologically good. Two reviewers did mild revisions, one was very thorough, and the last did not try understanding the manuscript. It was too molecular for the journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers were nice and knowledgble but a bit slow. 10 weeks for first round, 5 weeks for second.