Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.7 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My co-author submitted the manuscript in the wrong format, without the supplementary materials, and the journal staff took several emails to communicate with us and make sure they had all the correct files and our correct addresses before they sent it out for review.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
"I regret to inform you that the PNAS Editorial Board has declined your manuscript for further consideration. We receive many more good papers than we can publish and the Board must carefully weigh which papers merit external review. The expert who served as editor concluded that although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this time, and I hope you will consider submitting future work to PNAS"
Motivation:
Solid handling of the manuscript and decent reviews. One reviewer was highly engaged while the other provided only brief comments, but the editorial instructions helped us to navigate the process well.
Motivation:
The review process was fast.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
The reviewers' comments were strong and precise, but meaningful.
Motivation:
We are satisfied with the submission process as well as with the reviewers because it was fast and not as burdensome as it is in other journals. The submission process saves time and that was very valuable for us.
Motivation:
The review process was horribly sluggish. The ~190days for the first decision is unacceptable.
Motivation:
At least 8 points of (in my opinion) minor relevance were presented as reasons for the rejection by the editor. For example, changes in a few units, no plural in the keywords, column headers of a table shouldn´t be presented in a vertical way...
Motivation:
Revision comments of the editor were send back after 3 weeks (even though there were nearly no working days due to christmas eve and new year holiday time) and of high quality.
Motivation:
Very quick response by the editor, appreciated.
Motivation:
The quick response was highly appreciated
Motivation:
Favorite experience at a journal thus far. Editors were responsive, transparent, and fair. From my perspective, it felt like the editors made an effort to keep the review and editorial process efficient with as few gaps in handling as possible.
Motivation:
Overall acceptance rate and editorial rejection rate is about 30% and 25%, respectively. In the case of revision, "Your revision must include..." or "Your resubmission must include..." will be described. In former case, it is rather positive, however, in latter case, there is a risk for rejection after review.
In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci.
In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci.
Motivation:
The changes proposed by reviewers were quite interesting and contributed to the paper improvement; however, the first review was slow and took too much time to be accomplished.
Motivation:
Standard review times, mostly helpful comments, four reviews was a lot to deal with but OK, in-house copy editors are easy to deal with.
Motivation:
We had a difficult reviewer and one with more generic comments. The editor did not seem too much at ease to filter non-sensical requests from the useful contributions, but in the end we got a decent paper out.
Motivation:
The handling of manuscript is relatively slow even for small/minor changes
Motivation:
quick responses, excellent reviewers. Their comments were very valuable and improved the manuscript
Motivation:
We are satisfied with how Journal of Medical Internet Research handled our manuscript, the review process was nimble. As researchers we are grateful that the process was not as
time-consuming as our experience with other journals. It is remarkable taking into account that JMIR is a prestigious journal.
time-consuming as our experience with other journals. It is remarkable taking into account that JMIR is a prestigious journal.
Motivation:
The turnaround time was very short and the process was very efficient. The quality of the referee reports was not the best, but I've experienced receiving referee reports of much poorer quality after a significantly longer wait.