Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed speedily and thoroughly, and many of the comments were helpful and will improve the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
I chose the fast track process to fasten this step. When you conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews, the knowledge evolves quickly. At the time of the intial submission, the review is not "up-to-date" anymore. If the review process takes a long time, then, reviewers may ask to update the literature/search strategy. It can be a "never-ending" process...
I was very impressed by the timeline of this fast track process.
I got high quality services, I had very constructive comments from the reviewers.
I'm very satisfied and proud to be published in this high impact factor journal (JMIR).
I was very impressed by the timeline of this fast track process.
I got high quality services, I had very constructive comments from the reviewers.
I'm very satisfied and proud to be published in this high impact factor journal (JMIR).
Motivation:
Reviewers were rather out of the field. In particular the one review report on which the decision has been apparently made had simply wrong and obviously inaccurate statements for rejection. However, the journal was not interested in hearing our side, even after a very detailed appeal.
Motivation:
Rather fast bounce-back with a generic rejection e-mail.
Motivation:
We received two reviews, after three months, with the decision to reject the manuscript. Reviewer comments were fair, and the decision to reject was based on one of the reviewers comments about methodological concerns. These study caveats are discussed and justified in the manuscript. The other review was positive and constructive. I have no problem with the outcome, but 3 months is a long time to wait for a rejection.
Motivation:
Reviewer's comments were mediocre and showed a lack of expertise in the field. Also, they showed a clear misunderstanding of the research in the manuscript. The associate editor simply did not believe the results (since it did not fit his vision) and was not willing to discuss the reviews. The manuscript was quickly published in another journal and was highly appreciated among the gurus in the field. I do not recommend eLife but one can always try.
Motivation:
Overall, a very positive experience with a very professional editorial handling.
Motivation:
THe article was rejected from Journal of Health Psychology for the following reason:
"a shortage of space for publication in JHP. Our sister journal, Health Psychology Open, has unrestricted space and there is no word length maximum for articles."
A link was also provided to the recommended Open journal, which has Article processing charges.
"a shortage of space for publication in JHP. Our sister journal, Health Psychology Open, has unrestricted space and there is no word length maximum for articles."
A link was also provided to the recommended Open journal, which has Article processing charges.
Motivation:
The review process is too sluggish. Really horrible. After 15.9 weeks they rejected my manuscript without any chance of self-defense.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers really liked the manuscript while the second reviewer showed very biased opinions on the theory behind out study case. The comments were useful and will help improving the manuscript, but we wished there would have been a third reviewer. Also, the whole review process got delayed from the expected 50 days announced in the journal's website to 75 days.
6.1 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Response times were very quick. Review process would benefit from some sort of progress update on the submission portal.
Motivation:
Handling time seemed appropriate to me and two of the reviews seemed quite fair. Three different reviewers viewed the manuscript in total. One had a couple very minor concerns. The second had several substantive concerns that we tried to address, but in the end they did not think the paper was a good fit for the outlet. The third reviewer made several completely unfounded claims about how we measured one of our variables. The critique was so misinformed it was hard to even respond to as they were suggesting we did things we just did not do. It does not seem as though they even read our rebuttal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was not sent out to external reviewers. The rejection by the editor was explained sufficiently well. In summary, the manuscript was assessed as having some merit, but not being novel enough. This view can be understood.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews received from the reviewers and editor has helped to improve the paper. The role of the editor in handling the manuscript is professional and praiseworthy.
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