Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process was straight forward. The manuscript was handled in a professional manner. One of the reviewers was certainly though, but fair, and the manuscript improve in quality through the comments. The preprints looked beautiful; pretty good editorial work overall.
Motivation:
The handling took long (overall more than 10 months, 3 revised versions submitted).
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
The comments of one reviewer were detailed and of high quality, the comments of the second reviewer were superficial.
Motivation:
I think the revision process was perfect and allowed me learn more about writing and submitting scientific work. Thanks
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were correct. However, there was one reviewer that found my paper without interest for a journal in the two review rounds. Even though, my paper was accepted.
Furthermore, I found the second review process quite long.
Furthermore, I found the second review process quite long.
Motivation:
My paper was first rejected to address the reviewers concerns. The reviews were not of very good quality and they asked me to add their own citations. After I resubmitted, the chief editor made a mistake and rejected my paper. I had then to contact him to reverse his decision, and after a while my paper was accepted.
Motivation:
The reviewers found my paper not interesting. However, they didn't prove with references that it was not original compared to other works.
Motivation:
Takes for a long time.
Motivation:
Very long time for the first inspection, while, from the time point the manuscript was submitted, the only status shown on the website was "under consideration". An internal transfer to a completely different journal was proposed, although the scope of the new journal did not fit the manuscript's topic at all. It is, therefore, highly possible that the editor did not check/read the article.
Motivation:
The first round of the peer-review took very long. While the editor was fair with his decision following the first-peer review, an additional review process after the revision would have been much better instead of immediate rejection by the editor, given that a large number of experiments were performed during the revision and that the, by the editor demanded, additional experiment was not fitting the scope of the manuscript and normally counts as an own publication similarly large journals.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely slow and communication with the editors was not fluid.
13.7 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
There are many processes until competing a submission.
Motivation:
Good communication with journal. The three reviewers raised questions that greatly helped us in clarifying our manuscript. Some of the questions raised about our statistical analyses seemed rather basic and perhaps could have been filtered out by the editor. Overall, we were very satisfied with the experience.
Motivation:
Rejection by the editorial staff after a ridiculous 7.5 weeks. They judged the work to be "too specialized to be competitive". Complete waste of two whole months. No feedback that would be useful to improve the manuscript. I'm extremely disappointed.
Motivation:
The journal was efficient and thorough with the paper. In the first round we had 2 reviewers suggest acceptance after major revisions and one review who suggested rejection, but his justifications were not grounded. The editor recognized this, however, and we were given a reject and resubmit. The editor sent the paper back to one of the original reviewers, who indicated he was satisfied with the changes, and to two additional reviewers, who both wanted minor revisions. The editor indicated at this stage that he/she thought the paper had important results and if we could mange the revisions the paper would not go back to review. We made the changes and the paper was promptly accepted. The editor did a great job - 5 reviewers was rigorous and the paper was handled quickly and efficiently. The reviewer reports were also very well done. The reviewers praised the paper but also gave very relevant critiques that improved the quality. I was very satisfied with the review process and happy to have the paper land in the journal.
Motivation:
The quality of the review process was very, very low. Our manuscript was a follow-up of a study already published 3 times in high-level journals, and used the same exact methodology.
The Editor and a reviewer asked us to entirely change the methodology, suggesting revisions that were clearly, plain wrong.
On some points, the review was hironic, as they told us to change parts of the methods, when such methods were published 3 years before in the same journal.
One of the worst revisions I have ever had (among more than 200): we had to withdraw the manuscript, which has been accepted - after few, minor revisions - on a higher I.F. journal.
The Editor and a reviewer asked us to entirely change the methodology, suggesting revisions that were clearly, plain wrong.
On some points, the review was hironic, as they told us to change parts of the methods, when such methods were published 3 years before in the same journal.
One of the worst revisions I have ever had (among more than 200): we had to withdraw the manuscript, which has been accepted - after few, minor revisions - on a higher I.F. journal.
Motivation:
Having published multiple manuscripts with about 40 different journals, my experience with European Science Editing is really great. The journal has a strong editorial team who are very enthusiastic and whole-hearted in supporting authors in improving their manuscripts. The journal has particular strengths in editing manuscripts and submitters can enjoy their expertise and learn much from them, no matter how much previous experience. If I have relevant manuscripts I will certainly submit them to Eur Sci Ed and strongly recommend the journal to those who care about topics in scientific publishing, research integrity, peer review, science editing, and the like.
Motivation:
extraordinarily quick decision compared to other journal, or indeed this journal under previuos editors
Motivation:
This is the 4th paper that i have submitted (and had 3 accepted) by the BJGP.
As always, the process was rigorous, but fair. Because of the complex statistics in this paper, it was sent out to a 3rd reviewer, a statistician. The comments from all 3 reviewers were very constructive. I made considerable efforts to address these fully, and the end result was a much improved paper. The editor was extremely supportive throughout, dealing promptly and helpfully with a query whilst I was preparing the revised manuscript.
The journal's website with guidance for authors is detailed and clear.
The quality of the submission process for this journal is outstanding, compared to other journals I have used. I would commend the BJGP to authors with suitable manuscripts.
As always, the process was rigorous, but fair. Because of the complex statistics in this paper, it was sent out to a 3rd reviewer, a statistician. The comments from all 3 reviewers were very constructive. I made considerable efforts to address these fully, and the end result was a much improved paper. The editor was extremely supportive throughout, dealing promptly and helpfully with a query whilst I was preparing the revised manuscript.
The journal's website with guidance for authors is detailed and clear.
The quality of the submission process for this journal is outstanding, compared to other journals I have used. I would commend the BJGP to authors with suitable manuscripts.
Motivation:
What was outstanding was the very short time of getting 4 responses from reviewers who gave relevant comments. It is obvious that the editorial office is extremely effecient.