Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very slow review process. Too long! Good careful review reports. Very extensive quality rules for BJP are tedious to comply with but make a better manuscript.
Motivation:
Only managed to find one reviewer, after all others failed to respond or declined to review.
Rejected it based on the advice of that one reviewer, despite the fact the reviewer clearly didn't understand how the methodology aligned with the aims of the research.
Much of the feedback was difficult to understand, the reviewer's English was poor and so comments made little sense. Majority of the feedback was unhelpful and suggested completely redesigning the data collection, despite the data being sourced from literature.
Would have been fine with the rejection and the feedback, but the poor communication of the reviewer made it difficult to trust their opinions. Given the poor quality of the review, I didn't expect the editor to just accept the reviewers advice so readily, perhaps the journal needs a better selection process for reviewers.
Rejected it based on the advice of that one reviewer, despite the fact the reviewer clearly didn't understand how the methodology aligned with the aims of the research.
Much of the feedback was difficult to understand, the reviewer's English was poor and so comments made little sense. Majority of the feedback was unhelpful and suggested completely redesigning the data collection, despite the data being sourced from literature.
Would have been fine with the rejection and the feedback, but the poor communication of the reviewer made it difficult to trust their opinions. Given the poor quality of the review, I didn't expect the editor to just accept the reviewers advice so readily, perhaps the journal needs a better selection process for reviewers.
Motivation:
very good smooth process along with realistic reviewers' report. The editor's and reviewers' comment helped us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
When I submitted the paper, the editor rejected the paper with very useful comments in 4 days. I modified the paper and resubmit it again. Then, the paper is sent for the review process. The reviewers were familiar with the topic and provided appropriate comments. In conclusion, I had a good experience.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments helped in improving the paper. One reviewer (and the editor) offered a different way to parse the data and analyze it, making it more easy to communicate. The concerns of 2/3 of the reviewers led us to conduct a 2nd experiment which (a) replicated the results and (b) eliminated their concerns of potential alternative explanations. The theoretical contribution of the paper was also strengthened by the comments of the reviewers. Overall the process was a positive (although a bit lengthy).
Motivation:
Extremely long and frustrating processing time. The article went through several rounds of revision and would get kicked back by quality check for different things that weren't identified in previous rounds, each time taking a week to go through another quality check. It took over a month to find an editor for the article and one was identified only after I reached out to the journal to figure out why the manuscript hadn't moved and suggested more potential editors. The length of the review stage was on par with other journals, but the manuscript sat in Decision Started status for over a month. I got no response to my inquiries during this time. It took ~5 months to get the first review back, which is significantly longer than any other journal that I've used. On a positive note, the reviewer comments were thorough and did improve the manuscript. Subsequent review rounds did not take as long individually, but the manuscript spent over 8 months under review (not including time spent working on revisions).
Motivation:
Despite the positive reviews and more than one year in a submission process, the manuscript was finally withdrawn by us. The main reason for withdrawal was the extended review time and unresponsiveness from the journal.
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.