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 were highly constructive and helped to improve the article. The Editor was very helpful and assertive.
Motivation:
The Editor was very friendly and helpful. Reviewers suggested appropriate amendments.
Motivation:
Process at PNAS is quite opaque: for example, they do not share the identify of the Editorial Board Members.
Motivation:
Very good experience with the journal.
Serious processes... allright.
Serious processes... allright.
Motivation:
The editor raised some methodological issues regarding my manuscript. According to the editor, I used a path model which is discouraged by the journal. Also, in a short note he mentioned that the survey used did not meet best practices. However, I didn't use a path model in my paper which makes the judgment of the editor incomprehensible. Also, the editor did not reply to my request to clarify what exactly was missing regarding the survey. Although I was invited to revise and resubmit, due to the lack of in-depth feedback I was unable to do so.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Disappointing that it wasn't even sent for review
Motivation:
Good choice of reviewers. Good comments of the reviewers. But the process took too much time.
Motivation:
Acceptable time to first decision. One of the reviewers made a right methodological critique, but impossible to resolve in the context of the study. The other reviewer did not provide interesting critiques.
Motivation:
The submission and review process was very straightforward and professional. I would recommend submitting at this journal.
Motivation:
Managed to excite the reviewers, but they wanted more details on the models and hypotheses = rejected.
Motivation:
The editor was extremely helpful and effective throughout the entire process. Our paper was initially rejected after one positive and one negative review, but we appealed the decision. The editor was quite welcoming and positive with our appeal and gave us every chance to state our case. After a long, hard-fought processes we were allowed to submit a revised version. After another round of major revision the paper was accepted. Altogether the process was very long, but this was due to the long appeal process, not the actual review process. The handling of the paper was quite fast and effective. The editor was very pleasant and did a great job with the paper.
Motivation:
The editor stated in his rejection letter that "The manuscript does not fit the scope of JIMF." On journal's website, it is however highlighted that "journal devoted to theoretical and empirical research in the fields of international monetary economics, international finance,..." My paper contained both theoretical and empirical analysis on international finance. Based on Journal of Economic Literature classification, which is used in the profession to classify fields in economics, my paper very well fits the scope of JIMF. I found the editor decision arbitrary and baseless, not to mention it took three months for him to decide my paper does not fit this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was very slow. Editor took 1 month to send paper to the reviewers and reviewers took another month to reply.
Motivation:
A very rapid decision, rapid review process. Reviewers were positive, not hugely helpful comments though, but it was a fairly complete manuscript.
Motivation:
Fast procedure from 3 referees, reports correct.
Motivation:
This journal is very serious about its publication standards and quality. It gave me revisions about 15 times for which the quality of my manuscript has been increased quite a lot. I think this journal is a very well venue for publication.
Motivation:
The Editors were incredibly fast and helpful during the overall process.
Motivation:
The reviewing process was fast and the reviewers made some very helpful comments which were easy to understand and to include in the final manuscript (e.g. to add an additional scheme drawing to our manuscript for easier understanding of the experiments).
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviews were of extremely poor quality,
first reviewer had 5 comments;
the first comment was attacking the very first sentence of the introduction, a question a first year bachelor student would have found ridiculous.
2 were actually already addressed in the manuscript (for example comment about uploading data for repreducibility, which we had, and clearly mentioned in the data availability section)
2 were easily covered (minor details to explain further
the second reviewers comments were restricted to 1; do you have any additional information about the public data you used (which we obviously could have looked up and incorporated in the manuscript)
all in all, bad reviews, and simply not enough grounds for the editor to reject the paper on; the least he could have done is send it out to a 3rd reviewer, hoping for a decent assessment of our work
first reviewer had 5 comments;
the first comment was attacking the very first sentence of the introduction, a question a first year bachelor student would have found ridiculous.
2 were actually already addressed in the manuscript (for example comment about uploading data for repreducibility, which we had, and clearly mentioned in the data availability section)
2 were easily covered (minor details to explain further
the second reviewers comments were restricted to 1; do you have any additional information about the public data you used (which we obviously could have looked up and incorporated in the manuscript)
all in all, bad reviews, and simply not enough grounds for the editor to reject the paper on; the least he could have done is send it out to a 3rd reviewer, hoping for a decent assessment of our work