Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Overall, this was a positive experience. The paper is stronger as a result of the revisions.
Motivation:
The assignment of the editor, reviewers and all the processes after that were seamless, fast, and friendly.
Motivation:
Review process was quick and we regularly received updates on the current status. One of the reviews was very good and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The entire process in this journal takes very long although they are also very generous with the time given to the authors for revising the manuscript. The quality of the reviews was good and the handling editor additionally helped us with their statements (especially concerning contradictory reviewer statements).
Motivation:
Editor should had made the decision after the second round of reviews.
Motivation:
Fine handling of the manuscript and reviews from scholars who work on the same topic. Not the fastest review process.
Motivation:
Pretty smooth process from beginning to end; revisions helped to clarify a few things.
Motivation:
Good and helpful feedback from the reviewers, but it took to long for the decisions.
Motivation:
Submission process was smooth even if intense with around 80 questions to answer and many edits to bring to the manuscript. Reviewers comments and questions were excellent.
Editorial team was very kind and considering.
Outcome was approval, so it was a pleasant experience
Editorial team was very kind and considering.
Outcome was approval, so it was a pleasant experience
Motivation:
Competent reviewers, a bit more guidance from the editor could have helped, but in the end we got the paper through...
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The editorial process is extremely swift (accepted in 5 days). The editor carefully checked the manuscript, and provided pros/cons and overall evaluation, successfully satisfying both the scientific validity and the ultra-rapid publication.
Motivation:
Easy process. The first round of reviews was a little longer, but overall we were very satisfied with the quality of the feedback we received.
3.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted