Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewer is of high quqlity. Actually I needed to use all data I saved for the second part of the paper focusing on different properties because the reviewer was interested in those. The comments of the reviewer was kind of difficult ones. But, I could revise the paper without much efforts because I already had many of the data.
Motivation:
The review period was not quite long, and there were plausible comments for the paper improvement.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, and regular contact from the Editor.
Motivation:
Motivation:
The editor handled the paper ver nicely. The review reports came within a short period of time, and they were very constructive and useful.
Motivation:
The editor didn't know about the existence of a fourth reviewer. We had actually received the comments of a fourth reviewer in an extra email one week after the first decision with comments of the first three reviewers. We appealed the decision, but it was still rejected.
Motivation:
The journal is of high quality.
Motivation:
Very bad experience with the journal. We published the paper in a much more reputed journal than this. The AE gave some illogical comments. I think he/she is not aware of the approach proposed in the paper.
Motivation:
The process of working with JMIR and its editorial team was very straightforward. We received productive feedback on the submitted manuscript and were pleased with you quickly our revision was processed and accepted for publication.
Motivation:
Four months after submitting the manuscript I emailed the editorial office to aks for an update. They answered that they had only received 1 peer review and asked for additional potential reviewers. I suggested a few, but the manuscript was rejected the same day, based on 1 review.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted, but then took 4 months to be published. Asking us to cite other papers post acceptance and discussions about press releases, massively hindered publication. They were slow to respond to our concerns but frequently gave ridiculous deadlines (<24hrs) to respond to them. They pride themselves on being open access and speedy publication. This was not the case for us. Overall a very unprofessional experience and a huge delay.
Motivation:
When you see other articles dealing with related topic" being "sufficiently striking advance to justify publication, you wonder on the biased editorial comments; they (editorial board) obviously didn't have time to come across the content.
Motivation:
One of the reviewers enjoyed the paper and suggested publication. The second reviewer was obviously uncomfortable with statistics and did not understand the study design, however they never said to reject the paper. A different reviewer should have been chosen. It felt that the editor never read the paper and strongly guided by one reviewer and not the other.
Motivation:
Specialized journal. Reasonable delays.
Motivation:
an alternative explanation for the data was briefly given, ruling the paper uninteresting for publication
Motivation:
The most useful, efficient, and even pleasurable, review and publication process I have been involved in so far. Really impressed by this journal and look forward to submitting to JEB in the future. I especially want to highlight that the post acceptance publishing/ proofing editors were very friendly, quick and meticulous. I am very impressed by the whole experience.
Motivation:
The editor was amazing! Handled the manuscript very professionally. Took the comments of the reviewers seriously but also took initiative. Very good experience.
Motivation:
The decision said that the MS cannot be considered for peer review in its present form, because it does not fit with journal’s format rules.
They required reduction in the cited references(from 79 to max50), reduction the number of figures and tables. We thought that such a truncation of reference list and illustration materials would lead to a diminution of the scientific value of the study, so we looked for another journal for the next submission.
They required reduction in the cited references(from 79 to max50), reduction the number of figures and tables. We thought that such a truncation of reference list and illustration materials would lead to a diminution of the scientific value of the study, so we looked for another journal for the next submission.
Motivation:
During the first and second round of reviewing, the original files were changed by editor on tracking system. This maybe helpful for paper production but will be ignored by authors if they forget to update from tracking system.
Motivation:
it responds very quickly and is also indexed by many indices.
Motivation:
Fast reviewing process
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
Serious journal, they care about the quality and reproducibility
Motivation:
Short time of revision. High quality reviewers
Motivation:
The editors took so much time to take decisions, even though the changes requested by the reviewers were relatively simple. Overall, the paper sat for more than one month on the editor's desk. In addition, just after the first submission, the editor asked a member of our lab (who had only published with co-authors of the submitted paper) to act as a reviewer. Of course, our colleague rejected the invitation because of the conflict of interests.
Motivation:
I had mentioned in my cover letter that I needed things to move fast due to the tenure process and this is what occurred. They made the decision to send out for initial review in one day. The reviews we received reflected a very careful reading of the manuscript and a very constructive response focused on how improve it even further. The consultative process helped keep the number of changes requested to a manageable level within the eight weeks they aim for for revision. The reviews came up with suggestions as to how to textually address two of the five essential points if we could not carry out the requested experiments. The review of the revision just requested a few minor textual changes that greatly improved things further. The experience was exactly what I want from a scientific journal, it felt like a consultation among scientists who were focused on substance, not on arbitrarily delaying us or pursuing some pet idea unrelated to our original intentions.