Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
both refere comments were biased towards another group studying similar things. referes somehow failed (or acted in this way) to see the novelty of the presented data.
I like overall system that Jneurosci provides, but biased reviews killed the paper.
I like overall system that Jneurosci provides, but biased reviews killed the paper.
Motivation:
The time from resubmission to editor review was a very long time.
Motivation:
The editors and the reviewers did a early great job. First, the editors advised me to focus the revision on the most important aspects of the reviewers' comments. And they gave also tips on the way to handle the manuscript. The choice of the reviewers was really benevolent because the reviewers give me tips to improve my style, my main drawback. They really challenged myself, thus I have learnt a lot. Second, the reviewers were complementary. The first one was really hard to satisfy but that have challenged and improved my style. The other one gave tips to improve the logic of the argument, and the presentation of the method and results section. Therefore, Comptabilite-controle-audit is the perfect journal to develop our competencies and get the codes before sending articles to top tier journal. Thank Aude and Jeremy, the editors, for your work.
Motivation:
Overall, the process was relatively quick and painless. One reviewer gave constructive criticism that improved the paper somewhat. The other review, while favourable, was very summaric and did not suggest any changes. Despite the rapid handling of the manuscript, there was still some room for speeding up the process since the revised manuscript curiously sat with the editor for 3 weeks, without being sent out for a second round of peer-review, and without any additional comments or edits being requested by the editor.
Motivation:
Fair reviews from qualified and knowledgeable reviewers. Reasonable time frame and rapid editorial decisions.
Motivation:
One reviewer has given reasonable comments (and ask for "reject and resubmit), but another one offered fairly subjective opinion based on his attitude towards qualitative research (and reject the paper).
Motivation:
I expect to be able to get the information about the manuscript two months after submitted
Motivation:
The overall process was overall positive. The first review round was a bit long, but the editor kept us informed during the process (they had difficulties to find the secound reviewer). The communication with the editor was very good (ie very polite, quicks answers, didn't blindly rely the reviewers opinions). The reviewers were competent on the subject.
Motivation:
I have never experienced the similar problem elsewhere through my > 20 years career. Being rejected even twice after the dubious review and editorial decision, I doubt if some editorial board members have sufficient competence to handle manuscripts and reviewer comments properly.
Motivation:
The overall process was incredibly quick and smooth, plus the editors were very transparent about all steps and what they expect in R&R.
Motivation:
10 weeks for a desk reject is totally inacceptable. Plus, no further information on the reasons and also no information during the process (in the submission system) if the article was sent out for review or not. This is an unnecessary delay for academics and not very professional.
The article was accepted in the meantime by another major journal (first review, R&R, second review, acceptance - together 5 months/20 weeks).
The article was accepted in the meantime by another major journal (first review, R&R, second review, acceptance - together 5 months/20 weeks).
Motivation:
The first reviewing time was extreamly long, than, after sending back the revised manuscript, 2 of the 3 original reviewers did not participate any longer in the reviewing process and a new reviewer joined, making the reviwing process even more longer. The editorial handling was quiet fast though.
Motivation:
One peer review of little substance. Easy revision. Slow review process. Online system has poor tracking/status features compared w other journals. Expensive to submit and publish here.
Motivation:
I observed that the editor in chief is a very positive person but one of the reviewer seems to be totally unaware of the basic statistics theories. In such situation I think the editor shouldn't subject his/her decision to the decision of such ignorant reviewer.
Motivation:
After acceptance of the paper, a new comment by the editor, raising points that never emerged before in the reviewing process - and not very coherent with the content of the paper -, was sent to us. After that, we did not receive any further modification of the status of our paper, nor any suggestion on the process we should follow the change the manuscript. After two months we decided to write to the managing editor proposing some changes coherently with the editor suggestions.
Overall, the editorial process was poorly handled.
Overall, the editorial process was poorly handled.
Motivation:
a specialized journal in the field of Geriatric and Gerontology
Motivation:
All my experiences with this journal have been very positive. I received two reviewer reports, both which were very constructive and helped improve the quality of the paper. The paper was handled quickly and efficiently, and once the paper was accepted it was published online almost immediately.
Motivation:
It took over a month just for initial technical screening.
Motivation:
We received 3 reviews(after 12 weeks from submission) - two were clearly positive, even enthusiastic, one was mixed, but mostly negative. The editor decided rejection, even though the critiques from the mostly negative review were relatively easy to address(where they were appropriate) or to refute (where they contained factual errors)
Motivation:
After 27 weeks, we received a very positive review and a very negative one. The two reviews were clearly contradictory on several points. Moreover, the negative one was full of factual errors. The editor made no effort to reconcile the contradictions between the two reviews (e.g., by asking us to refute the critiques, by inviting an additional reviewer, or by evaluating the paper the editor himself).