Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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).
Motivation:
Rejected after my manuscript was held captive for over six months without reason. I was told that reviewer comments would be provided, but never came.
Motivation:
Rapid review process with good turnaround. Reviews okay but clearly not experts in all aspects of the work. Not allowed to address critiques.
Motivation:
The review time was good, and the content of the reviews made sense - although we did not agree with all the points made by reviewers.
Motivation:
They had some problems in securing reviewers (but it is probably because the paper was on a niche topic), which extended the duration of the first round of reviews. However, the reviews were indeed helpful in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
Interesting and useful feedback from the reviewers as well as the editor
Motivation:
The first reviewer sent less than a line as a response. The second one, although a little more helpful, was rude. I understand my article would not be accepted due to the lack of quality, however, I expected more professional reviewers and editors. Moreover, I could not have an answer to my article from the Editor during the process.
Motivation:
The positive experience is, the review process only took two weeks. However, the editor wanted us to resubmit a "major revision" in just fourteen days, which is too short a period of time by any reasonable standard. More importantly, the reviewers' comments were written in poor English that was sometimes impossible to understand. Some of the comments demonstrated the fact that reviewers' didn't understand the paper. Some comments were about our English, which is a little strange given the incomprehensible way in which our reviewers themselves have rendered their comments.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
Motivation:
This is absolutely the worst handling experience I ever had during my academic career! I submitted the paper in March, after 35 days, the editor sent the paper for review. The review reports completed in two months but editor refused to give out any information regarding the status of the paper. It stayed at "ready for decision" status for 48 days!!! I sent two emails to editor and editor in chief and asked for status update. Then editor finally sent us the decision letter which includes two reviewer reports which was written in under 20 minutes by probably two undergrad/masters students. The first one was "this paper is great, it should be published" and the second one was 2 paragraph without any scientific input which suggest the results are not interesting enough!! I have no idea why editor couldn't make the final decision based on these short reviews for 48 days!!! I would not submit to this journal ever again!
6.3 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 156.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
It's definitely not a fast journal, first round took more than 2 months and the second round around 3 weeks. The reviewer comments are not really helpful and did not improved the final paper much. Overall, I think this is a slightly higher than average journal with long handling time and not-so-efficient editors.
Motivation:
Very efficient editor and reviewers! The tracking system is excellent and everything is super fast and crystal clear. The reviewer comments improved the final paper significantly.
Motivation:
The process was lengthy and some reviews appeared contradictory and unreasonable.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
Motivation:
Good editorial guidance
Motivation:
The only line written was "We have received your paper. However, it is not suitable for JMIS and should be submitted elsewhere.".
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.