Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Te review took 11 months and there was a lack of communication or apologies about delays.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were very helpfull to improve the quality of the paper. Except one of them, all the reviewers have a deep knowledge of the topic.
Motivation:
I have wasted time. It took so many days for selecting reviewers. It took more than four months for decision of rejection.
Motivation:
The only criticism I have is the very long time spent in review for a very short and simple technical note. It spent almost 12 weeks in review and received only very minor comments from 2 reviewers (e.g. that it would be helpful to clarify a word used or to add a further column to a table). Thus we were able to address the comments easily within 3 days. The decision to accept came one month after we resubmitted. It is very hard to understand how it could take that long.
Motivation:
Although my paper was rejected, the Chief Editor took the effort to explain the reason. The Chief Editor indicated that the journal emphasizes healthcare provider treatment simulation systems, not simulations for health policy. At the same time, the Chief Editor made it clear that his decision was not a criticism of the quality of my work. He also referred another sister journal for my consideration.
Motivation:
Fast rejection which saves time for everyone. I appreciate this.
Motivation:
I am happy to see how the manuscript was handled by the journal, without wasting much time
Motivation:
I think International Medicine is an excellent journal. Although International Medicine is a new journal, the website, editorial board, submission system, review process, pdfs, etc. all are high level.
Motivation:
The editor rejected the manuscript due to not fitting to the journal. Nevertheless, he gave good recommendations on how the manuscript could be extended. He seems to have taken time to read it in detail. I think the feedback was valuable.
Motivation:
journal publishes Dutch articles only. Not referenced in PMC or google scholar. Goodto reach nursing practitioners
Motivation:
Exact reason:
"Because your manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that while your paper will be of great interest to the field it is not one of the most competitive in terms of general interest."
"Because your manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that while your paper will be of great interest to the field it is not one of the most competitive in terms of general interest."
Motivation:
Reviews were excellent but the delay in process after submission was pathetic.
Motivation:
Clear instructions, manuscript was accepted with only a few modifications.
Motivation:
First of all it should be mentioned that the content of the manuscript covered a couple of different scientific fields. So it seemed to be very complicated for the journal to find the right editor dealing with the manuscript (within a few days three emails were sent informing about changes in the editor; in all cases the third editor was taken for further processing of the manuscript.
The reviewers comments were of good to very good quality and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the comments of the editor were of mainly low quality and didn´t help to improve the manuscript´s quality.
It was the third time I send an manuscript to JCLEPRO. At the first time I made very good experiences with this journal. However, the second time (which was the former version of the actual third submission) the manuscript was rejected by the editor without sending it to reviewers due to really weak aspects like wrong unit (not IUPEC), plural in keywords, vertical column headers instead of horizontal ones, header of the y-axes in a figure was shifted...
During the third trial the comments of editors (as shown) were of mainly low quality and the timeline between submission and first decision was nearly 5 months and that way very long. I personally reviewed a few manuscripts of the JCLEPRO and I got all the time a second email when three weeks intervall was finished. Most probably, the large time gap was not caused by the reviewers.
The reviewers comments were of good to very good quality and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the comments of the editor were of mainly low quality and didn´t help to improve the manuscript´s quality.
It was the third time I send an manuscript to JCLEPRO. At the first time I made very good experiences with this journal. However, the second time (which was the former version of the actual third submission) the manuscript was rejected by the editor without sending it to reviewers due to really weak aspects like wrong unit (not IUPEC), plural in keywords, vertical column headers instead of horizontal ones, header of the y-axes in a figure was shifted...
During the third trial the comments of editors (as shown) were of mainly low quality and the timeline between submission and first decision was nearly 5 months and that way very long. I personally reviewed a few manuscripts of the JCLEPRO and I got all the time a second email when three weeks intervall was finished. Most probably, the large time gap was not caused by the reviewers.
Motivation:
First review round was reasonably fast and reviews very very useful and from very competent reviewers. Second review round took some time, but the waiting until final decision after the second review was unnecessary long as there were only two minor changes to look through.
Motivation:
Only 1 reviewer report was provided along with the rejection letter. The reviewer comments mostly focused on the technical imperfection of the paper instead of the scientific significance/knowledge the paper bears. One of the exact comment from the reviewer sounds "The original idea of the paper is lackluster to be considered for publication in high impact journal like Nano Energy". The editor's decision based solely on a single reviewer's comments is unconvincing.
Motivation:
After the paper was accepted, it was put on hold fpr an additional 20 months (!!!) before being published. Prior to publication the editors all of a sudden requested anpther round of sunstantial papers, 12 months after the manuscript had been accepted.
Motivation:
The time for desk rejection was short (which was a good point), but comments, sent by editor have shown that he even did not read the paper completely! He was asking about some tests and references which were already in the paper! Although he had some good recommendations about the manuscript.
Motivation:
Swift peer-review process and response by the journal editorial office. The constructive suggestions provided by the reviewers have definitely helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review reports were excellent and very constructive. Interactive review is a very good way to address reviewers's concerns. I highly recommend this journal to fellow scientists.