Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and non-problematic. But the copy-editing took more than 2 months and the first edit was done by someone obviously with no basic scientific background. I had to work for two days to correct/revert the changes made during copy-editing. Figures that were clearly placed in the supporting information ended up in the main article. The copy-editing office never replied to my queries and published the article with unresolved issues and questions.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, following editorial evaluation, we are unable to consider it further for publication in Advanced Optical Materials; however, we believe that your manuscript could be suitable for a sister journal with a more focused readership. We would therefore like to offer you a direct transfer, and my colleagues will be happy to evaluate your paper further here:
Motivation:
The reviewers are friendly but the questions are not very relevent to the paper. The review time is quite long for each round.
Motivation:
The Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT) Journal is the manager of the journal that I recommend, because it has good quality with reviewers from various countries.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
The handling of each journal is also considered very good.
And the paper received has a quality that can be considered.
4.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
All the logistics of the Journal work perfectly, perhaps the only detail is that the times in general are a bit long.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers, who evidently did not take the trouble to read the text properly, advised rejection. It was also evident that this person was not competent enough regarding the topic. The other reviewer suggested that the manuscript be revised and this reviewer was also very clear about the relevance of the contribution. The suggested changes were also not too major so that I could have sent a revision in reasonable time. Still, the editors in charge decided that the manuscript should not be published, allegedly "in accordance with" the reviews.
Motivation:
There was a small pressure to conclude the revisions before the time I was waiting for. They give me just few days.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and harmful.
Motivation:
The process was extremely fast and without any problem.