Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewers proposed acceptance, editor rejected the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overall it was a wonderful experience. We really appreciate the editor and reviewers' constructive feedback through the process.
Motivation:
JMIR Dermatology provided a quick and painless submission process. The editors and reviewers were quick about their decisions and provided clear recommendations for revision. One of the best experiences I have had with a journal
Motivation:
The editor manging our paper was excellent. They provided many commentaries and helped us navigate some contradictory reviews.
Motivation:
Journal held the manuscript for over 8 months. Did not respond to emails at the 5 month mark. The journal had only one review, which was positive, for months, then solicited a second review which was cursory. Editor rejected the paper for "methodological" reasons which were not specified. In fact, the paper was very strong methodologically.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was good, the reviewers and the editor gave mostly helpful and fair comments and the management of the manuscript was efficient but the whole review process took too long. Waiting for 8 months from submission to acceptance is a bit too much.
Motivation:
The staffs of journal were very kind people, help you especially if you are not English native. The journal has organized system from submission to publication. Qualified reviewers. Rapid decision by editor.
Motivation:
The editors were quick in finding reviewers and making decisions. The quality of the reviewer reports was moderate.
Motivation:
It took 36 weeks to receive a single review. The justification of lack of a second review was that the Associate editor was unable to get a response from Reviewer 2. Period of 36 weeks is likely sufficient to find an alternative second reviewer in the case of lack of response.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
Motivation:
It is a review
Motivation:
They could not use their own submission system. They missed our resubmission. They lost the additional materials we submitted. The quality of the reviews were not good.
Motivation:
we recognise the potential interest of your findings for specialists. However, I regret that we cannot conclude that the paper offers the sort of particularly striking new insights with far-reaching implications that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of the broad scientific readership of Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in another journal.