Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I submitted the article to this journal as part of a pre-exisiting special issue project it was part of - even so, it was desk rejected for not being coherent to the aims&scope - which in itself I understand but does not make much sense to me for an article already part of the special issue that had been proposed by the special issue editors.
Motivation:
The editorial office did every executive affairs in a good way. However, the quality of reviewer comments were really questionable.
Two reviews were sent to me, one of them was accurate and helpful. However, the other one was very short and vague. He/she advised for the rejection, while it was clear that he/she did not even read all parts of the manuscript.
Two reviews were sent to me, one of them was accurate and helpful. However, the other one was very short and vague. He/she advised for the rejection, while it was clear that he/she did not even read all parts of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Received great comments. The overall period, from submission to publication, is longer then what I expected. However, its worth it
Motivation:
Provided good comments to improve my manuscript. The process was efficient.
Motivation:
This is an excellent journal for publishing an occupational health research papers. Their dealing with the author and transparency is excellent.
Motivation:
Fast and positive
Motivation:
Thorough review process with meaningful input. Length of time required for initial and secondary review seems more than reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process was quick, the reviewers knowledgeable and insightful. The tone of the reviews was polite and friendly, the editors were helpful and decisive , as well as swift in their decisions. Absolutel no negative aspect to be mentioned.
Motivation:
The processing was very fast and well handled.
Motivation:
The reviews were of intermediate quality. Negative points were that the first reviewer mainly wanted us to cite some literature. The second reviewer said that the theoretical focus does not fit to the journal and we should add more empirical results. I think the editor should decide this question at the beginning before sending the manuscript out for review. Therefore, this should not be a major concern for the reviewer.
However, both reviewers also had some valid points.
However, both reviewers also had some valid points.
Motivation:
The editor took care of every aspect at highest possible quality and in a very timely manner. Reviewers were chosen very carefully and the feedback was excellent.
Motivation:
Very accommodating editor (having allowed additional delays due to the pandemic).
Very interesting comments from reviewers and editor. Taking them into account greatly improved the article.
Completely reasonable deadlines.
Very interesting comments from reviewers and editor. Taking them into account greatly improved the article.
Completely reasonable deadlines.
Motivation:
a reject and resubmit because the editors saw the potential but wanted a broader (=longer) engagement with the literature
Motivation:
I did not understand the criticism.
Motivation:
Rapid rejection, that was appreciated.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and helped me to improve the paper substantially.
21.9 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Editor thought that the paper was too specific for the journal (after the reviews were in).
Motivation:
Report of the first reviewer was not very constructive, but the second reviewer and the editor were.
Motivation:
It was impressive to see review from 5 reviewers in one month time for a >20 pages review article.
Motivation:
The referee reports were very detailed and professional. Both argumented their case clearly and based on solid arguments.
Motivation:
Review process was way too long. The outcome was fine, but the process took forever.
Motivation:
Extremely fast, positive and motivating comments that helped to improve the article.