Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The original manuscript received favorable reviews but the editor requested us to reformat it to Letter to the Editor. The revised manuscript was promptly rejected without external review due to lack of space.
19.3 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The quality of reviews was high but the process was slow
Motivation:
The submission process is clear and easy. However, after submission everything went downhill. After the manuscript had been stuck in "editor invited" for 2 months, we contacted the journal if we could help find an editor, and received a boilerplate answer that "our paper had their full attention". After another 5 weeks without a change in status, we decided to withdraw the manuscript.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.
After the initial request to withdraw, we did not hear back from the journal. It took 15 days and 4 emails to finally receive an answer and for the manuscript to be confirmed as withdrawn.
Motivation:
The experience was great. The editor responded very quickly, the reviewers' suggestions are constructive, and the quality of the article really improved after the revision. I think the quality of the article has been improved.
Motivation:
This journal is quick in review process. All reviewers are friendly and put energy to improve the ms. Especially, Editor is wonderful, quick in response, and so friendly in word use.
Motivation:
If an article is not suitable, then the desk rejection should be within a week. I believe the editor made a subjective decision because I found a specific category from the journal that our article fits.
Motivation:
I received very good reports, from reviewers that definitively understood and studied the paper. The reports not only were very timely, but also requested some interesting and pertinent modifications in the paper, which improved the earlier version. My overall experience with this journal is excellent and definitively I plan to submit future works.
Motivation:
The process duration was totally in accordance with the estimated duration stated in the journal website. The reviewers' comments were professional and helped imporved the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Quick turnaround with reviews and responsive editorial team. Quality reviews.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected by a reviewer that changed his mind in the second round of reviews. I found it unprofessional since it could reject it at the first round instead of making me address some concerns that were not taken into consideration.
Motivation:
Very quick turn around time and high-quality reviewer reports. Ultimately the paper was rejected but peer review helped us improve our work.
22.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
6 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I was fast and rigorous review.
Motivation:
There is an APC fee, which makes the process fast, I think they deserve it.
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Quite harsh criticism from one reviewer, and new reviewers in the next round (completely different comments). Constructive approach by editorial board.
Motivation:
Lousy journal. From mismanaging the initial submission to biased reviews and clueless associate editor.
I am not sure how the editors planned to attract submissions and to grow a new journal in this way, unless gatekeeping is what they are after.
I am not sure how the editors planned to attract submissions and to grow a new journal in this way, unless gatekeeping is what they are after.
Motivation:
the review process was quick
Motivation:
Totally useless reviews. One of the reviewers was obviously out of topic, and the second one wrote only one sentence that the paper would be better for a veterinary journal. I can't believe that the editor's decision was based on these poor reviews. Very unprofessional, and I will never submit to this journal again.
Motivation:
The review comments were insightful and I believe that they elicited major improvements in the manuscript. The pre-acceptance period was also relatively quick based on experience.
Motivation:
Very fast and superficial review process that deemed my article did not "meet our substantial scholarly effort criterion".