Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
4.3 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and the comments were easy to implement.
5.6 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviews were reasonably fast and the comments were useful. I was overall very satisfied with submitting to this journal.
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick and the comments made by the reviewers helped us improve the manuscript.
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The submission process was easy and the technical editor was very helpful and fast. The manuscript was sent for review soon after submission. Almost four months after submitting we got a single review (just three sentences) rejecting the manuscript. I felt that the quality was substandard, and it seemed like the reviewer probably only read the manuscript superficially.
2.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process is very quick and helpful to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
8.1 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review was fast. The reviewers' comments were insightful and helpful.
3.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: While our manuscript was rejected, both editors and reviewers were reasonably fair and balanced, and suggested an alternative journal for publication. The manuscript was quickly accepted after transferring to another journal. Communication was quick and so was the review process.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
78.0 weeks
111.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The paper was simply not forwarded for months. After a year we had to ask twice until we got an answer and the paper was forwarded to reviewers.
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
Motivation: Only one reviewer. Many other premier journals in this field supplies review comments from 3 reviewers. Extremely poor review of a reviewer that had clearly not given the paper the attention submissions to a premier journal such as Circulation deserves. Unclear reasons for rejection. Long time to first decision, which was supplied only after asking about the status of our submission.
4.7 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Response was quick and detailed; reviewer reports were comprehensive and constructive
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
7.1 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
8.1 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
14.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The journal has improved considerably in terms of the quality of the articles published in recent years, however, it should still improve in terms of the speed of final editorial work, prior to manuscript acceptance. Something negative is the high cost for publication in a journal that is not yet part of the JCR
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
5.7 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
n/a
n/a
57 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: We received only cursory justification for rejection (2 sentences), related to lack of perceived novelty. I accepted the decision (perhaps I chose the wrong journal), but was highly disappointed by the amount of time it took to make this decision. I'm going to submit this paper to a preprint server before I resubmit to another journal.
26.0 weeks
50.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was good and the paper improved as a result. However, the overall process was extremely (and unnecessarily) long.Took six months to get the first reviews. Several critiques but really minor in nature. We re-submitted as fast as possible hoping that the editor would give us a fast acceptance but that wasn't the case and the paper was re-sent to the reviewer. Fair enough, but it took almost another 6 months to hear from them again. This time they came back with super minor things. We revise and resubmit within a short time. To our disbelief, it went back to the reviewer again and took more than a month to get their reply which was obviously to accept the paper.
15.7 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: It was a great pleasure to work with very professional and kind Members of the Geologica Carpathica journal, as well as with external anonymous Reviewers. Everything was perfect, from the first moment of registration at submission system to the final technical quality and design of the published Manuscript.
7.0 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite fast but rigorous
3.7 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
1.3 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review was quite superficial. Perhaps more strict and detailed reviews would have contributed more.
9.3 weeks
25.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: Peer review was strong and strict, and suggestions offered not only by reviewers but also editors have benefitted the manuscript. However a couple of times we felt minor suggestions were needlessly imposed, e.g. manuscript title changed without asking.
4.3 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Rejected
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The suggestions made by the editorial board upon rejecting the manuscript were good, although far-fetched (e.g. genomic analyses of numerous samples, meaning a new investigation completely). I think it is a strong journal, if same standards are applied to everyone.
3.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: Overall the submission process and review were fast and straightforward. Apart from some problem with the manuscript submission system, all was fine. (No manuscript number was assigned at first and received an error message followed by support, but apparently caused no delay). The handling editor was very efficient for speed. I'd have appreciated lengthier reviews, though: 3 reviewers made rather superficial suggestions. I however believe they were selected from reviewers I suggested, so this was not up to the journal and next time I'll just suggest others.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Rejected
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
10.7 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted