Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process was reasonably fast and quite transparent. The reviewer's report was short but reasonable and well argumented.
Motivation:
The declared manuscript handling delays were respected throughout the process, the peer reviews and comments from the academic editor were in-depth and constructive. The only negative are the relatively high publication fees.
Motivation:
The journal did not give any reason for rejection. Even a few lines of feedback would have helped improve my manuscript, or help decide the next journal. Overall, I found time to desk rejection too long.
Motivation:
The process was quick and transparent. The argument for the decision is solid and well justified.
Motivation:
The time of submission to first review is approx. 1 month. Second revision reviews might come in approx. a month after submission. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. Definitely helps improving the paper.
Motivation:
I found the review process very fast and adequate.
Motivation:
While this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 weeks is unreasonable when the journal claims a rapid process. Moreover, the editor did not respond in a timely manner to numerous inquiries. It has now been over 2 weeks since submitting the response to reviewers' comments, and the editor has not responded. Not responding is unprofessional.
15.4 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process was very rapid. Review comments were constructive but limited in scope. Editor assessment was constructive but limited in scope. All correspondence was handled professionally.
Motivation:
Relatively fast review and revision processes compared with other journals I submitted, but the second round took a bit longer than expected.
Motivation:
The reviewers did a great job of returning reviews quickly, but it took much longer for the AE to reach a decision at each round.
Motivation:
Good reviews, rapid feedback, constructive and critical. Will submit again here for another paper down the line, I am sure.
Motivation:
Excellent, thorough reviews and rapid decision time. Expensive journal but can recommend it for sure.
Motivation:
Trash journal. One reviewer had minor revisions recommended, the other major. Editor then took the liberty to reject it outright, without any helpful feedback, and then refused to provide any useful feedback when approached. Very slow process and ultimately a huge waste of time. Do not submit here.
Motivation:
Fairly quick review rounds with helpful and constructive reviews which contributed to improving my article. I was overall very satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
Review was timely and review comments were constructive. Editorial process seemed fair and impartial. I would have preferred an opportunity to address the review comments, rather than an outright rejection, as the review comments seemed like they could have been addressed.
Motivation:
The reviewer team is very profesional, and always help with solutions to the issues. However is a hard process, an currently all paper may pass triple round review.
Motivation:
None of the reviews raised any serious challenges to the research and the writeup of the ms. At the end of the day, after we had, in our judgment, thoroughly addressed all the reviewer's points, none of our rebuttals were addressed but the editor had a colleague on the editorial board review it and this editor, who was obviously ignorant of the domain, recommended rejection. What was particularly galling was that the action editor provided no opportunity to address this last review. All in all, it was the worst and most caprisious editorial experience I've had or witnessed (I myself have been an editor) in my professional life.
Motivation:
Since all review comments were very suggestive, our manuscript was significantly improved through the review process. Very nice comments. However, the duration of the first review round was long.
Motivation:
It is not polite to give any answer regarding the review of the paper within almost 18 months.
Motivation:
It is easy for your manuscript to be lost in this journal. They have updated their submission system which do not allow you to track your manuscript. Besides, it is common that you will struggle in selecting appropriate handling editor, and on many occasions will not accept your manuscript and will be going in circles.
Motivation:
Overall, this was a good experience. It was a little slower response time than I would have liked but otherwise the reviewers were fair and process went well.