Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The initial review process was longer than I had anticipated, but the reviews were on the whole thorough and useful. On second review the additional comments were very useful and caught errors we missed which were highly beneficial for the article. The editor was very helpful throughout the review process, and ultimately I am glad we submitted to the Journal of Anatomy.
Motivation:
Reviews were (relatively) helpful, and the outcome being a rejection was not entirely surprising given the reviews. However, the journal took way too long to share these reviews after they had come in. It took months "Awaiting decision" and some email exchanges with the editors to get a reply. Nevertheless, the editorial staff was helpful and approachable.
Motivation:
The feedback of the reviewers was very constructive and helpful, which improved the paper greatly. Benjamin Sovacool's personal comments further showed the interest in the paper and was very much appreciated. Overall smooth and timely revision process!
0.7 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Opinions of the reviewers are useful and helpful to our manuscript. This journal is very efficient!
Motivation:
Fair experience of the review process.
Motivation:
After submitting the manuscript, the submission system indicated that it was sent to referees. NOT TRUE!, The manuscript was not even submitted! I emailed the office a copy of the manuscript to make sure they received it. After about 6 months, after trying to be in contact with the editor for a long time, they told me they have not received the manuscript. Bad communication by the editor and IT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. Send to another journal, this is the last journal you want to send your manuscript to.
Motivation:
Even though it took a month for the editor to assign the reviewers, we got the revisions very fast. All comments improved the manuscript and were highly constructive. We got two weeks to adjust the manuscript, which was accepted one week after re-submission. We highly recommend publishing in this journal.
Motivation:
The journal handled our manuscript quckly and the reviewers did a fine job. We were rejected and the reasons seemed plausible. One of the comments of one of the reveiwers were unexpected and a bit hard to agree on, but in general they pointed out weaknesses that allowed us to improve the manuscript for another attempt at another journal. One negative aspect: in the guideline for authors there were a couple of inconsistencies that made the submmission process more confusing and time-consuming then it should be.
Motivation:
After not hearing anything from the editor for almost 5 months, I send them an email to which they responded promptly, telling me that they haven't managed to find any reviewers for my paper. They asked me to be patient and after a couple of months more (seven in total) I received one (negative) review.
Motivation:
After waiting for 4 months, received a review of cca. 30 words, telling me that my stats "were wrong because I am claiming that my correlations are low, but significant (r=0.2, p<0.05), while in fact they are high, because of a high number of respondents (N=232)". After receiving this, I sent an email to the editor, pointing out the very low level of quality of the review (and not asking for a second review). The editor responded the same day with a very rude and unprofessional email.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast. The journal team always kept us informed about the stages the paper was going through, the editors were very prompt in replying to emails. I highly recommend this journal.
Motivation:
General speaking, it is a positive experience with JMIR. JMIR author guidance is very clear and the structure of my manuscript has been improved by following the JMIR author guidance. Despite not paying for fast track publication, we received our reviews fairly quickly (around 2 months). Additionally, the comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers are quite useful.
Motivation:
The first round's decision for revise & resubmit was based mostly off of a single (though incredibly thorough) reviewer ("reviewer #1"). The second round included one more simple reviewer and an even more thorough request for revision from reviewer #1. The modifications made to our submission due to this reviewer #1's comments undoubtedly made the paper significantly better off. All in all the PNAS submission process, though stressful at times, was a great success!
Motivation:
The review process (one round of reviews) took 7.5 months to complete. Multiple emails to the editor went unanswered until the very end. The editor ultimately decided that the article wasn't a good fit for the journal. Couldn't that decision have been made before sending the the manuscript out for review?
Motivation:
The review was rather poor in that many of the points were not inherent faults of the paper but rather issues that could have been addressed and revised, if given the appropriate time/space to do so. Thus the decision sounded more subjective rather than grounded on fair points.
Motivation:
One reviewer recommends accepted, while a second reviewer recommended a rejection. According to reviews, Associate Editor decided to reject the paper.
8.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My overall experience is good with this journal. The journal gave enough chance to revise the manuscript. Satisfied with the overall process.
Motivation:
It seems that it took a bit long to send the manuscript to an associate editor (2 weeks). However, the associate editor was really fast about it.
Motivation:
The editorial assistance at CHSOC was excellent, the editorial work as well. The reviews were all useful and insightful.
Motivation:
It took 71 days to reach a decision.
Motivation:
our manuscript get rejected with no specific reasons. It really is a bad experience. I suggest not wasting time on this journal if you are not famous enough in your field.
Motivation:
very fast decision with several reasons and suggestions, this is really helpful
Motivation:
NAR receives far more manuscripts than it can consider for publication, and therefore all submissions are subjected to preliminary review by Executive Editors to assess their suitability for the journal. Detailed peer reviews are then sought for only a fraction of the manuscripts submitted. All manuscripts are evaluated relative to other recent submissions. In this case, I appreciate the effort that went into your research and the preparation of this manuscript. However, NAR prioritizes studies that focus on obtaining deep insights into molecular mechanism. Your manuscript has a broad focus and is primarily descriptive, making it more appropriate for a journal with a different specialization.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.
We hope that you are able to find a more suitable journal in which to publish your article.