Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The comments from the reviewers and editorial team were very helpful however the time to the first decision was slow.
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.
Motivation:
O editor tentou me vender várias vezes o serviço de correção gramatical da editora.
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.
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.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, especially given the final decision was rejection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Though two reviewers submitted positive comment but based on one negative review that too literature content the manuscript was rejected.
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
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.
Motivation:
The original review was extremely slow. When communicating with the editors, I was told they were having trouble finding qualified reviewers.
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.
Motivation:
The editorial team were very helpful in the development of the submitted manuscript. However, the process was slow.
Motivation:
While the manuscript was rejected without external review the process was very timely and I would recommend publication within the BJSM.
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.
Motivation:
This was the very first submission to Frontiers in Oncology from our group and as mentioned in the Journal Description the overall handling, reviewing and decision making process were extremely efficient. As compared to our experiences with previous high end journals. The editor assignment was extremely quick and the whole process from that point onwards was very supportive. We received fair unbiased reviews for our manuscript and while not all comments were useful, the process definitely enhanced the quality of our document. Most of the comments from reviewers addressed the need to include more information pertaining to the observations made in our study. Throughout the entire process we were constantly kept informed of our manuscript status due to a transparent review process. The editor also handled all queries raised by us with minimal delay in the publication process. A slight glitch was presented towards the end of the publication when the editorial office suggested an article transfer following the endorsement of the article by both the reviewers. However, following a response from us they withdrew this request. Amongst all the journals which I have submitted to till date, Frontiers in Oncology definitely stuck to their motto most effectively. I would surely send out future articles in this journal
Motivation:
- The review-process was exceptionally thorough. Very critical and extensive feedback.
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
- The duration was very reasonable.
Very satisfied!
Motivation:
Reviewer advised rejection because this was not "surprising" enough.
Motivation:
Very quick turnaround time. Professional communication. Good review reports.
Motivation:
Reviews were handled appropriately, in our opinion. Editorial decision to reject was explained in detail - thus justified. We felt that we could have addressed the concerns in a chance to review the manuscript, however, these things are always a matter of debate