All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: Overall: not enough editorial filtering.
One of the reviewers flagged a statistical query, which is what got a statistical reviewer involved. The first review was easy enough to address, requiring clarifications and some additional statistical analyses to rule out confounding (which we were able to do). The second, third and fourth rounds were only with the statistical reviewer as the others were satisfied with the first response. I understand that statistical reviewers are important in population-level studies, but there has to be some editorial sense-checking of the comments coming in. They cannot allow comments that contradict previous suggestions and just leave the authors to go back and forth catering to every whim and fancy. We had to deal with one comment that was so bizarre, that it required us to produce a two-page long table that added nothing to the material presented in the manuscript, and is unlike anything published in the field.
However, another issue is the copy-editing and house style of the journal. There are way too many deviations from SI systems, and these all become the author's problem to incorporate. It is especially challenging for graphing, where restrictions by colour palette, and the unique method of writing units mean that every graph required special formatting syntax. Additionally, we had so many conflicting comments from the copy editors in subsequent reviews: change LDL Cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol and then change LDL-cholesterol to LDLc.
A journal need only bother with formatting figures down to colour schemes etc once they have accepted a manuscript, so long as the figures are legible and clear. Starting from the first revision to the third we were saddled with minor formatting requests, that could easily have all been pooled at the end. It would also be helpful if journals in general gave dpi requirements for grayscale and coloured images instead of simply saying what is sent across was inadequate.

Motivation: Very efficient.

Motivation: Reviewers had generic criticism about the fact that other authors (they name them, but they do not point to specific papers) already addressed the same problem. Not pointing out any specific paper is very annoying because of course authors are convinced that there are differences w.r.t. literature work. Just saying that other authors worked in the same area or the same problem without the possibility to verify it is not enough. Other criticism was ok in the sense that they required further experiments and practical validation. However, saying that what is proposed cannot be implemented in practice in a straightforward way is again generic without pointing out any specific concern about the transferrability of the result in the real world.

Motivation: The review process was relatively quick, though it would have been beneficial to receive more extended feedback/review as some journals are wont to do. I was only informed of the acceptance, which was pleasant but the article might have profited from more concrete scrutiny. As well, as far as I know there's little by way of copy-editing provided.

Motivation: Our manuscript was initially rejected after the first round of reviews. It seemed to us the decision was largely based on the a methodological misunderstanding from only one reviewer. We appealed the decision and were granted an appeal on the condition of providing significant additional data (including totally new approaches not used in our original submission). We revised the manuscript over the course of several months and resubmitted with all the requested data, which greatly improved the paper. After another, positive round of reviews we were asked to make some additional cosmetic changes and the manuscript was finally accepted a year after the initial submission.

Motivation: The decision for desk reject seemed rather arbitrary (policy article for a policy journal rejected on the grounds of not fitting). But I appreciated that the response was relatively fast and I could send it somewhere else rapidly.

Motivation: We sent our manuscript to the journal knowing that they have clear principles regarding quality but also regarding time of the reviewing process. The experience we have is just in this direction.
The whole process is automated and therefore clear and transparent. The reviews were helpful and in a positive mind but also critical. After putting much effort again to revise our manuscript we resubmitted and the decision was made in a short time.

As reviewer for that journal for many articles I also know that the editor is very clear to set boundaries for the time for the reviewers. That is very helpful for scientists as we know it is necessary to publish much and in good quality (this is not the best thing but reality) so it is a great difference in comparison to some journals which let you wait a year or more just to get a negative answer.
Regarding the review process my experience also is that the answers from other reviewers are also mostly polite and nevertheless critical and in many cases the manuscripts have to be rejected. This let us compare the weight of being accepted in that journal.

All in all we could see that it is a clear and good way of the journal to work with authors and reviewers to get results which rely on good work and not only on significant results.

Motivation: We experienced a fast and informative review process.
Both negative and positive reviews were insightful, demonstrating understanding of the paper, providing useful suggestions for improvement and clearly calling for rejection or acceptance. The reviews were accompanied by explicit grading (fair, good, excellent) in four areas (originality, technical quality, clarity of presentation, importance to field).

Motivation: The review process was quite slow, with 7 months for the first round of reviews and 3.5 months for the revisions. Given that the revisions weren't even sent out to reviewers, they were just sitting on his/her desk that whole time!

The redeeming qualities were the managing editor, who was helpful, responsive, and sympathetic to the delays; and one of the two reviewers, which was insightful and improved the manuscript. I enjoy reading this journal, but likely will try to avoid publishing there again (at least until after I get tenure) due to the extremely slow turnaround time.

Motivation: Rapid handling, excellent reviewers who had constructive suggestions, leading to a thorough revision of the manuscript

Motivation: Fast time from submission to acceptance (letter to the editor manuscript)

Motivation: The turn-around times were generally very fast for a journal in this field.

Motivation: Really thoughtful and sensible comments from Editor and peer reviewers - excellent process all round.

Motivation: Personally, I consider a review period of over 6 months unacceptable.

Motivation: This is an open access journal under the Indian Association of Palliative Care. I am grateful for the fast review. The comments by the reviewer suggested that he/she was not familiar with the methodology of my paper and was rather curt. However I take it as an opportunity to improve the manuscript and am very glad that it was accepted within the day that I submitted the revision.