Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Unfortunately, one of the reviewers was clearly biased, tried to delay the manuscript as much as possible, and reduce its impact. Additionally, the duration from acceptance to publication was very long (45 days) due to ongoing requests by the editorial staff (to replace individual words and perform other minor changes).
Motivation:
I received three comments and the editor’s rejection decision. The comments of the two reviews are very positive. One is direct publishing. The third comment suggested, "do not publish". The third reviewer's report was wrong and ignorant, but the editor accepted his/her suggestion despite my appeal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted during the COVID pandemic but was still processed and returned relatively quickly. Although the editor and reviewers appeared to see promise in the manuscript, it was rejected with the editor suggesting that we rewrite the paper and resubmit it to the journal as a new submission. It was not clear why we were not granted an option to revise and resubmit.
Motivation:
The manuscript sat with the editor for two months before being sent out for review. Once it was sent out to reviewers the decision was made within a month. Admittedly this was during the COVID pandemic but it was fair longer than the other manuscripts I had sent to other journals at that same time period.
Motivation:
Reviewing Editors comments were mediocre and lack of understanding.
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick
Reviewer seems not an experts.
good point: quick