Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very quick handling time. Both reviewers critically engaged with the paper and provided important feedback while also being supportive. Editor did a great job explaining which changes are most important.
Motivation:
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
That’s great to hear! Collaborating with the editor can significantly enhance the quality of your work. Do you have more details about the experience? How did the editor support you?
Motivation:
The paper was sent to two reviewers. Both of the were extremely careful on their revision. They made very helpful reports that improved the paper quite a lot. The overall process was fantastic and the editor was very quick in taking the required actions.
Motivation:
The reviewer made an in-depth report on my work, commenting on fundamental aspects of the paper. The whole process took nearly two months and the reviewer seems to be someone who has a deep knowledge on the subject. I had a very positive experience.
Motivation:
Within a month, we received the reviewers' reports, so I think the process was quite smooth. We were disappointed to see the paper rejected after reviews, and did not find all reviewers' comments reasonable (for instance: recommendations to cite our previous but unrelated work). However, I understand the editor's decision based on these reports.
Motivation:
I found the review reports of good quality, they helped to improve the paper. The process was a bit slow, that would be my only feedback. When asking for status updates, the editorial office was responsive, which was nice.
Motivation:
The whole process was very smooth when compared to other journals. Always had good response with RSC journals
Motivation:
Review time was not short, but reviews were minor and helpful
Motivation:
The Journal of Fish has a rapid editorial process. I indicate fish researchers to try publish in this periodical.
Motivation:
The initial review took around 2 months, allowed 2 months for revision and resubmittion.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were both reasonable and clearly stated in order to revise. Review and editorial process was swift and decisive. Overall, a very efficient and time-effective process whilst remaining thorough.
Motivation:
One gave an acceptance and two reviewers raised novelty problems with compliments about the solid and robust experimental results. Editors play an important role as judges. They accepted our paper.
Motivation:
I received three very constructive reviews in each round of the submission process. As a PhD student, I was very happy with the fast review process!
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief thoroughly reviewed my manuscript and sent it to two independent reviewers, both of whom provided highly constructive feedback that helped enhance the quality of the manuscript. The editorial team also handled the manuscript efficiently, and overall, I am very satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were reasonable and helpful to refine my manuscript. However, the second-round review took much more time than usual, so I pushed the editor many times to know the status of the review.
Motivation:
There were three reviewers with minor comments.
Motivation:
Although there were a total of 5 referee reports, each were really fast and yet very detailed. The reports helped us to improve the article a lot by removing some extra hypotheses. It was a very pleasant experience!