Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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).
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 excellent. We received thorough and constructive feedback from three reviewers, which helped us improve our manuscript substantially. The editor was very responsive, giving clear guidance and making the decision fast after we submitted our revised paper.
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.
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:
The JMIR provided me a fast, high-quality, peer reviewing and the reviewing process made my article substantially improved. The reviewers were very professional and excellent. The editor-in-chief was very friendly to the authors. After these promising reviewing and revisions, we were satisfied for such as a high-quality and high-impact submission/reviewing system.
Motivation:
Fast time from submission to acceptance (letter to the editor manuscript)
Motivation:
Compared to review processes at other journals, the editor was more in contact with us during this submission, informing us about the progress of the reviews and explaining a small delay. The review process felt thorough, with constructive, useful comments both by the editor and reviewers. Overall, a very positive experience. Critical, constructive, and therefore helpful in improving the paper but respectful and friendly tone, and the editor was very fast in responding to questions.
Motivation:
The turn-around times were generally very fast for a journal in this field.
Motivation:
The process was extremely slow, but the manuscript was significantly improved by the review process.
Motivation:
Really thoughtful and sensible comments from Editor and peer reviewers - excellent process all round.
Motivation:
A couple of sentences on reason for rejection were provided.
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.
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I believe any editorial decision, such as rejection of non-interesting papers, should be done within a few days. We though our paper sent to reviewers to get comments but we surprise to get rejection for a strange reason which they want deep learning papers. Note, before we sent our paper we contact with related section editor, i.e. image processing section, and he was interested in my paper abstract.
Motivation:
Only complaint: in our view the reviewer's comments could have been rather easily accommodated in a revision, clearly the editor thought otherwise.
Motivation:
There were numerous rounds of revisions, but each time the journal and editors responded fairly and in a timely fashion. Overall, a positive experience.
Motivation:
After the paper was accepted, there were several times of very careful and kind minor revisions with technical editors.
Motivation:
Of the first two reviewers the second one withdraw of the review process, this made to extend the review time.
Motivation:
The reviews of the external editors were of overall high quality. Moreover, the additional comments by the editor who summarized the reviewers´ comments and added comments of her own were very helpful and detailed, and helped to fine-tune the manuscript. Finally, we always received rapid and friendly answers to all of our questions during the editorial process.
Motivation:
I received two reviews and further comments from the editor with critiques and suggestions about the general argument, various details in my piece, English infelicities, and general tone of the paper. All of them very helpful, good experience.
Motivation:
I am extremely satisfied by the way the manuscript has been handled by the editorial board.
Motivation:
I appreciated that in addition to providing the comments from the external reviewers they also included general comments relating to the journal itself. One challenge I experienced was that while I was submitting my response the system timed out and did not save what I had entered. I would recommend you save your response in a separate file and copy it into the response box rather than directly typing it in.
Motivation:
"In this case, while we do not question the validity of [...], I am afraid we are not persuaded that your findings represent a sufficiently striking advance to justify publication in Nature Communications."