Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the manuscript was rejected the decision was quick.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
7 reports
5
4
Accepted
7.4 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
13.4 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
11.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: My sense is that the journal just didn't find our study interesting enough. Comments from reviewers were mainly positive, though the few critiques they did have will be helpful for resubmitting the paper elsewhere.
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: The comments from the reviewers and editorial team were very helpful however the time to the first decision was slow.
13.0 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Drawn back
Motivation: The editor has not even read the paper and the reviewers' comments. In the second review, I received 1 accept, 1 major, and 1 revise and resubmit which the later one has completely misunderstood the paper, the editor has not checked the validity of the reviewer's comment and decided the revise and resubmit for the second time. It is worth to mention that the reviewer with the revise and resubmit decision declared that he/she is not familiar with the subject !!!! In general, I saw a weak and unprofessional performance by the editor and I will not submit any paper there and I do not recommend this journal.
3.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
Motivation: O editor tentou me vender várias vezes o serviço de correção gramatical da editora.
13.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.4 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2.7 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
12 reports
4
5
Accepted
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: A third reviewer was requested for the review after 4 weeks of submission. The first reviewer liked the paper a lot, considering it novel and important without major issues. The second reviewer stated that the paper is not suitable for the journal without providing any scientific suggestions.
12.0 weeks
16.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.7 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I would highly recommend publishing within Sports Medicine. The review process significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript and all reviewer reports and editorial decisions were extremely timely.
30.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The review process was very slow, especially given the final decision was rejection.
18.6 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The issues they warrented regarding methodology was not a big deal. We could have been given a chance for a correction. Although we sent an e mail for a resubmission, so far there has been no answer.
13.0 weeks
65.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: I found the editorial process very professional in general and I was quite happy with the result. Still, it was a bit unfortunate that once my manuscript was actually accepted with minor revisions by one editor, after I made the requested changes, the new editor insisted on recruiting a new reviewer, who of course had a very different perspective. In principle, you can do this for ages and every single person will have something to suggest, yet the paper will never be 'perfect'. So I would say that the review process was absolutely fair but a bit tiresome.
25.0 weeks
90.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: All in all, I can't recommend it. The reviews were ok, but the editorial office was extremely unresponsive. After a request for some minor revisions that we carried out in less than 3 weeks, we were left without any information regarding our manuscript for almost a year. Meanwhile we sent plenty of emails, with no answer. However it resulted in an 'accept', it was a very disappointing experience.
1.7 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
249 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.0 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: The first and (arguably) second revision clearly improved quality. Thereafter, only incremental improvement(s). Referees made contradictory recommendations, seeded to get lost in irrelevant details, and did not always understand the nomenclature. After the 3rd revision they wanted some request from the first revision reverted (so it appeaed).
The editorial office was unhelpful (no decision making power, stonewalled contacting the editor).
I googled the editor, sent him an email to his work email (not the editorial email). He responded within 30 min (on a Sunday!!), reviewed all evidence from the 18 months /4 revisions process. It was all the time handled by a sub-editor who did not make a decision, it seemed.
We had a conversation over the phone the next day and later the day the Journal sent an acceptance letter.
At last a satisfactory outcome and the editor handled it professionally at the end.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I appreciated the quick decision. The journal also offered to transfer our manuscript (without reformatting) to one of a couple of affiliated journals they recommended. We didn't feel those were a great fit (and probably are just generic recommendations they make to everyone?), so we did not choose to go that route.
6.3 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The EIC was extremely helpful in the development of this manuscript and the reviewers were both knowledgeable and timely.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: Among three reviewers two reviewers were positive in their knowledge and the third reviewer mentioned that literature review was not enough for publishing in this journal. They also mentioned typo errors and that was not visible for other two reviewers and it has not mentioned clearly what kind of typo error.
Though two reviewers submitted positive comment but based on one negative review that too literature content the manuscript was rejected.
8.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The level of communication from the editorial staff of this journal was of a very high calibre and they were happy to discuss manuscript queries.
34.7 weeks
38.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: This journal maintains a very high quality and the managing editor is very humble. Any questions are answered very quickly about the manuscript and the provide waivers for undergraduate students who face difficulty to pay. The journal has quite good indexes, so in my sense, it is a very good journal.
47.3 weeks
58.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
Motivation: The original review was extremely slow. When communicating with the editors, I was told they were having trouble finding qualified reviewers.
10.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Please note: the original journal decision was "reject and resubmit" due to major revisions needed, but I have reported it here as "revise and resubmit". I was pleasantly surprised with the relatively quick turn-around time of the resubmitted manuscript, and surprised that the editor did not send it back out for review. The revisions were fairly substantial changes to the methods, and the addition of one more analysis, but none of it substantially changed the results or conclusions. I am impressed with the communication with the editors, the sponsorship of archiving data in Dryad, and the offer of multiple ways to communicate via Twitter, Facebook, blogposts, etc.
9.4 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: The editorial team were very helpful in the development of the submitted manuscript. However, the process was slow.
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
10.4 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
39.0 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
3
Accepted
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the manuscript was rejected without external review the process was very timely and I would recommend publication within the BJSM.
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.4 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor team is working very fast. The whole process took place very quickly, taking less than three months. The comments of the reviewers were very affirmative and relevant.