Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Happy with the pace with which the journal handled our papers, and appreciated the reviewer comments. Good experience overall.
Motivation:
The decision for desk reject seemed rather arbitrary (policy article for a policy journal rejected on the grounds of not fitting). But I appreciated that the response was relatively fast and I could send it somewhere else rapidly.
Motivation:
Very fast handling. Reviewers' comments were straightforward and actionable.
Motivation:
We sent our manuscript to the journal knowing that they have clear principles regarding quality but also regarding time of the reviewing process. The experience we have is just in this direction.
The whole process is automated and therefore clear and transparent. The reviews were helpful and in a positive mind but also critical. After putting much effort again to revise our manuscript we resubmitted and the decision was made in a short time.
As reviewer for that journal for many articles I also know that the editor is very clear to set boundaries for the time for the reviewers. That is very helpful for scientists as we know it is necessary to publish much and in good quality (this is not the best thing but reality) so it is a great difference in comparison to some journals which let you wait a year or more just to get a negative answer.
Regarding the review process my experience also is that the answers from other reviewers are also mostly polite and nevertheless critical and in many cases the manuscripts have to be rejected. This let us compare the weight of being accepted in that journal.
All in all we could see that it is a clear and good way of the journal to work with authors and reviewers to get results which rely on good work and not only on significant results.
The whole process is automated and therefore clear and transparent. The reviews were helpful and in a positive mind but also critical. After putting much effort again to revise our manuscript we resubmitted and the decision was made in a short time.
As reviewer for that journal for many articles I also know that the editor is very clear to set boundaries for the time for the reviewers. That is very helpful for scientists as we know it is necessary to publish much and in good quality (this is not the best thing but reality) so it is a great difference in comparison to some journals which let you wait a year or more just to get a negative answer.
Regarding the review process my experience also is that the answers from other reviewers are also mostly polite and nevertheless critical and in many cases the manuscripts have to be rejected. This let us compare the weight of being accepted in that journal.
All in all we could see that it is a clear and good way of the journal to work with authors and reviewers to get results which rely on good work and not only on significant results.
Motivation:
Very friendly staff in Editorial Board. The editor responds to email queries within 12 hours. It is a total learning experience.
Motivation:
In the first round of reviews, from the 3 reviews, one of them was very vague and difficult to understand. Other 2 reviewes were very good.
In the second round of reviews, the comments were vague and impossible to know what reviewers were asking. After talking to the editor it was possible to address these concerns and submit the final version of the paper.
In the second round of reviews, the comments were vague and impossible to know what reviewers were asking. After talking to the editor it was possible to address these concerns and submit the final version of the paper.
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.