Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
At each time I submitted my manuscript, it was very quick sent to review. I received very timely, critical and constructive reports. The final version of the manuscript is much better than the original one and the improvement is due to both reports, which I much appreciated. Overall I had a very nice experience and I strongly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
Thanks to the editorial boards that made the decision too quickly. They transferred it to an open-access journal (ACS Omega). To be fair, they had better choices for transfer.
Motivation:
Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). They could make a better choice, though.
Motivation:
Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal.
Motivation:
Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and fair. Had one reviewer who didn't seem to read the article closely and asked for things that were outside the scope of the paper but that happens everywhere and should not reflect the journal. After the first round of revisions, the first reviewer was satisfied and the second review had only "one tiny comment" in which they said they did not understand a sentence that they had not commented on in the initial review. Instead of a conditional accept, we were given another R&R. Sent it back the same day and it was accepted the next day. Despite this hiccup, it was still an overall good experience publishing with JAH.
6.5 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Received constructive reviews as well as feedback from the editor.
Motivation:
Quite long time for immediate reject,
Motivation:
No response from editors when asked about exceptionally long review time, rejection based on one (very late) negative review.
Motivation:
Though the reviewing process took quite a long time, the comments from the reviewers were very useful for my manuscript. I felt that my manuscript was significantly improved after the revisions. Once again, I am really appreciate all reviewers for their excellent comments.
Motivation:
I was impressed on the quality of the review reports received. The manuscript was hugely improved and also my current work has improved a lot thanks to the many things learned through the review process. The editors looked for many reviewers and were very committed to help improving the work instead of just accept/reject, which is very rare. Overall, the best one could hope for from a publication experience.
Motivation:
Reviewers recommended rejection for mainly "academic" reasons (e.g., data analysis and experimental design not being the most elegant) while acknowledging the timeliness and value of the information presented. Many of the points raised were requests for clarifications/additional information which could have been addressed in a revision in my view.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
Motivation:
The time taken for the process could be shorter. Currently, a 9 months gestation period from manuscript to the published version is a little too long in my opinion.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process took much longer than we expected and what is advertised. Most of the reviews were of good quality and understandable, with only one or two exceptions. One in particular was written in a fundamentally negative attitude that was too superficial to even understand and adress the concerns. The reviewer did not answer when contacted by the administrator for further details. It was somewhat difficult to understand the decisions of the editor because the paper was rejected with encouragement for resubmission even when all reviewers accepted the manuscript for publication, which was already the case in the first review round. Communicating the reject decision and providing only the reviews that recommend an "accept" is only of limited help. Resubmission was more effort compared to other journals because they are treated like new submissions, so that all metadata also needs to be entered again.
Motivation:
A bit slow for a desk rejection, but they are uncomplicated with the submission and explained the unusually high volume of submissions.
Motivation:
Very smooth process through peer reviewer and rapid time to acceptance by editors.
Motivation:
The reject reason was the journal would like to have qualitative studies instead of quantitative ones.
Motivation:
After 3.3 weeks, the CIE directly rejected our manuscript but recommended us transferring it to other two family journals with high impact factor.
Motivation:
Very slow process, low quality external reviews, decision of editor based on wrong assumptions