Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Some edits suggested by the reviewers were useful, whilst other criticisms seemed somewhat unwarranted or largely opinion-based. The response from one of the two reviewers was quite lengthy but could have been improved by including more concise and constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
The editor's email was rudely phrased, especially since I was suggested by an editor to send it to this journal and the the reviews suggest the reviewers voted R&R. While not everything in the reviews was clear and some of it is impossible (ie creating new data), some helpful comments can be extracted. The time and the editor's attitude have put me off this journal though.
Motivation:
The editor was efficient and the reviewers' comments are reasonable and logical, which helped in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
This is a great journal and we enjoyed the smooth editorial process. We received considered and helpful reviewer and editorial comments. Note this was a 'Brief communication' article type which means review speed etc may be slightly faster than for regular articles.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviewer comments was overall helpful, but the process took very long with several review rounds.
Motivation:
The criticism of both reviewers were constructive and helpful in developing the manuscript further. The review process was short compared to other journals. So I have written a 'thank you' message to the editors, despite the rejection.
Motivation:
My impression is that they handle submitted papers very irresponsibly (first they send me a general rejection letter saying that the details are in a reviewer's report, but did not attach any report, and then (after I pointed it out) they send me another quick rejection letter saying that they did not find it interesting).
Motivation:
Labor History is very efficient for an A (ABDC)/Q1 (Scimago) journal. Reviews are rigorous yet handled quickly
Motivation:
It took almost three years to receive the first report. It looks like the reviewer simply forgot about the paper.
Motivation:
The editor was not very responsive. The manuscript state stayed at "Decision in progress" for weeks. Also, it took weeks before the manuscript was sent to reviewers (even regarding the revised manuscript).
Motivation:
Always competent and in time. Way to go!
Motivation:
In my view the editor is very active and the processing speed is very much satisfactory. However, the answer to the reviewers queries process were challenging. This is an awesome and trustworthy journal especially in the field of ceramics materials.
Motivation:
Decision was fast and even though an immediate rejection was decided we did not loose much time
Motivation:
Received very good reviews in the first round. The quality of paper improved after answering those questions. But, later one of the reviewers took around 5 months to respond back. Quite minor corrections were proposed.
Motivation:
The editorial team and reviewers moved very swiftly and my guess is that they could do so because the paper and journal offered a very good fit. They have a reputation for the type of articles I submitted and reviewers were quite well informed.
Motivation:
The review process was very long and the reviewer's criticisms do not improve the manuscript
Motivation:
Although it was an uneasy decision for us, we have decided to withdraw our manuscript after nearly 8 months of the lengthy review process. We have learned after withdrawal that the journal had a positive (considered for publication ) review from one of the reviewers. The second reviewer, however, has never sent his/her opinion on the revised manuscript (six months after submission, until withdrawal). We think that the journal had multiple options to deal with this situation, for instance they could find another reviewer or take a decision based on the opinion of the first reviewer and the editor assigned to the paper. Since SREP is in the business of APC (article processing charge)-based publishing, it should guarantee to its authors an engagement of a responsible editorial board and a team of trustworthy reviewers in order to structure an effective and operational review process.
Immediately accepted after 0.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
I am very satisfied with the editorial process of the journal. The editor was very helpful and responded very quickly to some questions I had regarding the editorial process. The turnover was very fast. I have received the comments of the peer-reviewers three weeks after submission. The comments were constructive in nature and helped me finesse the manuscript. It was accepted shortly after I had submitted the manuscript after the suggested revisions. Once the article was published online, I was notified via email, containing all the information and an active DOI, the same day. In addition, the editorial team was very meticulous and took great care to ensure that the final layout would be approved by the respective author and that all information was correct prior to publication—something that does not usually get consulted with manuscript authors. Overall, I would highly recommend this journal to my fellow academics in the field of security studies.
Motivation:
All the review process was correct and fast. I am very satisfied with the review process by this journal