Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Due to the format of the journal, a lot of the methodological details had to be put in the Supplementary Materials. Yet my impression was that the journal did not make the SM easily accessible for the reviewers. Two of the three reviewers mentioned that it took them some searching to find the SM, which contributed to some of their confusions in reading the manuscript. Other than that the review process was fast and the feedback were mostly very helpful.
Motivation:
The process of publishing the article went well and quickly, and I think the comments of the reviewers for the revision were correct and fair.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. Reviewers asked important questions about the paper that contributed significantly to improving the final version. Accepted after the first revision.
Motivation:
The submitted manuscript was reviewed by two experts, and the comments from two reviewers significantly improved the quality of our paper.
Motivation:
The submission and review process were very smooth. Unfortunately, due to problems at the production department of the publisher, there was some delay to publish the paper on OnlineFirst.
Motivation:
This was a fairly standard special-issue handling. The review reports were received a month late relative to the original schedule, but that is not excessive. The reviewers gave reasons for their rejections. Not what we wanted, but it is hard to make sense of "not sufficiently original". I accept that that is the subjective aspect of peer review.
Motivation:
The journal needs to work in improve the duration until the final decision
Motivation:
I received a very positive decision letter, which came after a fair time from the submission.
Motivation:
I received two very positive reports. One recommended acceptance as was, whereas the second one asked for minor revision. The reviewers made comments about the content of the manuscript, showing that they really read the paper and were able to understand it completely. Moreover, as in the journal's description, the whole process as really fast.
Motivation:
This was a pleasant experience at all stages of the publication process. The reviews were elaborate, and one of the reviewers suggested a reference giving a missing link between the newly introduced notions and the known ones; this was what the author has been searching for many years. In the final stage, the corrected proofs (galleys) were provided for checking (after processing the uncorrected proofs), for the first time in the whole author's career. It was nice to have an opportunity to check that all the corrections have been properly incorporated.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was handled quickly and we got great feedback in the first round of revisions. These comments improved the quality of the paper. We then got another round of revisions with one of the reviewers unconvinced by some of our arguments. We had to extensively rebut their comments and also mentioned to the editor that the tone and brevity of the remaining reviewer's comments made it seem like the reviewer would not objectively evaluate the paper. I don't believe the manuscript got sent to the reviewer before the editor made the decision to accept the paper. I think the handling of the manuscript and the quality of reviews were fantastic, but it was a shame we had to fight one of the reviewers the way we had to,
Motivation:
The editor initially sent the manuscript to two reviewers, one of which recommended publication with minor revisions and the other that recommended rejection. The editor then sent the manuscript to an additional reviewer, which extended the review process considerably. The third reviewer recommended rejection. As the recommendations for rejection were based primarily on reviewer biases (i.e. the manuscript addresses a contagious topic on pollution management), the editor was fair and recommended either an additional analysis and new submission or we submit elsewhere (and provided example journals). I would submit to Biological Conservation again, but I would be cautious of the timeline as the decision to only send the manuscript to two reviewers (which I could see through the tracking platform) resulted in a longer than needed review timeline.
Motivation:
Quite solid and fair reviews (one more so than the other), and solid editorial process overall. Only the overly aggressive copyediting took more work to fix than it should have.
Motivation:
Manuscript was handled very well. It took a while before an editor was assigned, but once it got assigned, we received the review reports rather fast, they were useful to improve the manuscript (it did not require heavy work as they were minor comments in general). After 1 round we resubmitted and 3 reviewers (2 from before and 1 new) checked the manuscript and accept for publication was the final decision. No further changes were asked.
Motivation:
Excellent review process, fast reviews, constructive reviews that improved the manuscript. Recommend journal for papers in the field of phycology.
Motivation:
Review process quite fast, publication after acceptance also very quick
Motivation:
The review process was very quick and the review comments were
very polite.　The points raised by the reviewers were important.
very polite.　The points raised by the reviewers were important.