Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It's been a long process, but the editor helped tremendously to navigate the critiques and turn this into a much more focused paper.
Motivation:
The review process was rigorous. Two reviewer was assigned. One was very easy to convince. The other was very tough and provided significant improvement to the paper. Three rounds of review were needed for the acceptance of the manuscript. The editor was very helpful. Overall the experience was nice with this journal.
Motivation:
Although this submission was only a Letter to the Editor, I was pleasantly surprised by the prompt response from the editor (especially during the holiday season).
Motivation:
Professionally and efficiently handled. The reviewers comments were useful and fair. Very pleased.
Motivation:
The reviewers addressed important issues in the manuscript. Their comments are valuable in the improvement of my manuscript.
Motivation:
First round of review took nearly a year, I never received any reports, and nearly three years after submission and two after acceptance, the paper is nowhere near appearing.
Motivation:
The website kept altering the status between awaiting reviewer selection and awaiting reviewer assignment for 2.5 months. When contacting the journal, they state that the second reviewer is overdue in sending his comments. A couple of days after that, the journal send a rejection with a single reviewer comments which is a single sentence that is not understood as it has grammatical errors and lacks cohesion.
Motivation:
Both the reviewers wrote few sentences stating that our article was unfit for the Statistical Methods in Medical Research journal, which is completely okay. What is not okay is that they took around 2 months to understand it and notify us.
Motivation:
The manuscript was initially rejected because I suggested the "wrong" editor, so I resubmitted the manuscript immediately. Because of this, time was added to the review process. I also question the qualifications of the reviewers. The issues that they raised were not major and could have been resolved with some simple feedback to the reviewers or the addition of a sentence or two in the manuscript. Clearly they were unfamiliar with the type of data I used. Overall, I found the handling of the manuscript unprofessional and I would not recommend this journal.
Motivation:
The initial review period may have been relatively long, but this reflected the thorough review it received. If the review periods become too short, you can only receive superficial reviews.
After accepting the manuscript, the editor invited commentaries to my theoretical paper, to which I replied in a further publication in Theory and Psychology.
After accepting the manuscript, the editor invited commentaries to my theoretical paper, to which I replied in a further publication in Theory and Psychology.
Motivation:
reviewers had very few comments.
A very positive point is that after internal acceptation, someone read carefully the article to check english and misprint. It improves the overall manuscript.
A very positive point is that after internal acceptation, someone read carefully the article to check english and misprint. It improves the overall manuscript.
Motivation:
We received a letter from the editor 4 months after the paper was submitted. The letter was saying that the article has not been evaluated favourable by the reviewers. We asked for the reviews, however, the editor refused to send them saying that the journal keeps the reviews confidential, which contradicts the Springer's Review Policy. After we connected Springer it turned out that this was desk rejection. It is impossible to check whether it really was, but even if it is, 4 months is too much time for desk rejection.
Motivation:
Actual review process was only initiated after inquiring after the manuscript's status 2 months after submission. Academic editor was not aware of submission, possibly due to bug in relatively new submission system (according to editor).
Process required a lot of self-initiative but replies were usually prompt and to the point.
Process required a lot of self-initiative but replies were usually prompt and to the point.
Motivation:
Topic-wise, the assigned academic editor was highly suitable for the manuscript, which probably facilitated the finding of suitable reviewers. All requested changes were to the point and easily realizable. Very prompt communication.
Motivation:
Very fast and excellent review reports
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 1.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
I forgot to mention the keywords, and the editorial office unsubmitted my manuscript with instructions to include the relevant keywords.
Motivation:
we should thank The Editor-in-Chief, Prof. L.G. Hultman. the editorial efforts should be appreciated. of course , the reviewers he chosen helped him a lot to reach this decision so fast.
Motivation:
The reviewers provided great insights into our research topic and raised relevant comments to reconstruct the manuscript in a good shape. In addition, this journal provide ample time (i.e., 60 days for a major revision) for the authors to address the reviewers' comments. We highly recommend the researchers to submit their studies related to healthcare in the community in this journal.
Motivation:
The paper was submitted for a special issue. Frontiers uses an interactive online submission system that facilitates the review process. Unfortunately, one reviewer dropped out of the process and had to be replaced by a second reviewer who missed his/her review deadline by several weeks.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
it is Q4 at the moment 2020, will be better in the future
Motivation:
Thorough but encouraging review process. Easy communication. Relatively quick turnaround.
Motivation:
Since the paper passed editor in chief and assistant editor and I received one positive and one negative review I thought that maybe it could be send to a third reviewer for another opinion... anyways I sent a request to the editor in chief but I never got the answer.
Motivation:
Very careful internal review for this introduction (not foreseen for external review).
Motivation:
After one month of wait, we received a straight reject email where a reviewer stated that our discoveries were not confirming some scientific statements available in the literature for that topic.
That statement did not make any sense: of course, as our article was new, it contained aspects that differ from the current literature.
That statement did not make any sense: of course, as our article was new, it contained aspects that differ from the current literature.
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and the reviewers gave excellent, clear suggestions that helped improve the paper. The editors were also good with communication during the process.