Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
eNeuro handled this manuscript quickly and effectively, collecting useful reviews in a timely manner. Their double-blind process and editorial synthesis of comments were also appreciated. The whole process was smooth and steps were well-communicated.
6.7 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall, I found the process to be quick and efficient. The reviewers' comments were constructive and provided valuable insights. Additionally, the editor prepared a comprehensive list with all comments, which was very helpful. I am overall satisfied with the experience.
Motivation:
Our experience publishing an original scientific paper in the journal 'Biomolecules and Biomedicine' was very positive. All responses arrived within the specified time frame, and we promptly received clear instructions for any ambiguities. The reviews were detailed and well-intentioned, and we believe they ultimately improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Pretty quick revision. Editor helped us to find to two external reviewers, and received minor revision with only 10 questions. our paper was accepted within 3 days of revision submission.
Motivation:
Although a little slow in the beginning (who is not??!) the editors were very responsive and I think the review process was excellent.
Motivation:
We got 3 reviewers, the reports were relatively easy and the handling was really smooth.
Just the editorial modifications (formatting, gene names, etc) was a bit a pain, but nothing impossible.
Just the editorial modifications (formatting, gene names, etc) was a bit a pain, but nothing impossible.
Motivation:
The first review was positive with the recommendation to make minor changes for acceptance. The second review was quite critical with the recommendation to reject. The editor sided with reviewer 2 and rejected. Note that communication with the journal in their internal system was not reliable/response times were quite long (weeks) for inquiries about the status of the manuscript, e.g. if reviewers had been secured and approximate timelines for review. However, this may depend on the editorial assistant assigned to the MS and therefore isn't a reflection of the journal as a whole.
Motivation:
The judging process was faster than I thought, and at the same time, the necessary accuracy was used in the judging.
Interactions with the journal were accompanied by respectful interactions from the editor.
Interactions with the journal were accompanied by respectful interactions from the editor.
Motivation:
The reviewers made opposing recommendations (one to reject and other major revisions). The reviewers showed clear opposing appreciations. For example, one reviewer mentioned that it found the "contribution not strong enough to justify publication in one of the leading outlets in communications and PR research" and the other reviewer mentioned, about the same topic, "The information provided in this paper is new; at any rate, this reviewer is unaware of an equivalent study". The editor decided to reject (that is, to follow just one of the recommendations).
Motivation:
The handling of the paper was efficient and the review reports were so-so. That said, I would consider this journal again in the future.
Motivation:
Despite many rounds of review, it was overall a good process, and I would (and have) recommended this journal to colleagues.
Motivation:
Very good experience, could be a bit faster though.
Motivation:
The editor was very quick to take decision.
Motivation:
The handling and review time was very fast, considering how a high-impact journal it is.
The only minus is that I would have liked to read the referees' reports even if they were completely positive.
The only minus is that I would have liked to read the referees' reports even if they were completely positive.
Motivation:
Compared to previous experience the journal has improved its review time
Motivation:
The submission was quickly handled and two reviewers were quick to accept invitations of reviewing. The paper itself suffers from major problems in technical aspects, and lacks novel contribution, as acknoledged by the reviewer team, and I completely agree. The review reports are of high quality, harsh but fair, and I really benefited from them a lot, as they gave constructive criticism that actually help me find a new direction where I can better frame this research.
It was a long shot anyway, and I really appreciate that they took the effort and reviewed my paper.
It was a long shot anyway, and I really appreciate that they took the effort and reviewed my paper.
Motivation:
The review process was great and the comments added a lot to the manuscript.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
Motivation:
The review process was great and the comments added a lot, the only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review (about 3 months).
Motivation:
Quite decent comments. Review time is reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process is quick. reviewers provide helpful comments.