Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Response was quick and detailed; reviewer reports were comprehensive and constructive
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
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.
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.
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.
Motivation:
The process was quite fast but rigorous
Motivation:
Peer review was quite superficial. Perhaps more strict and detailed reviews would have contributed more.
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.
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.
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.
Motivation:
The review process was overall very long, and some of the reviewers' comments were not relevant to our manuscript. The editor was, however, very understanding when it came to decide which additional experiments were needed and which ones were not. Overall, the manuscript's quality improved considerably during the review process, mostly due to the additional experiments we were requested to do.
The proofs of the article required us a thorough review, because several mistakes (e.g. loss of italic, mislabel of references) had been introduced by the company that dealt with the manuscript.
The proofs of the article required us a thorough review, because several mistakes (e.g. loss of italic, mislabel of references) had been introduced by the company that dealt with the manuscript.
Motivation:
Its an international science citation indexed journal
Motivation:
This Journal is one of the outstanding scientific Journals in endocrinology and diabetes
Motivation:
Editorial policy was used to finally judge the paper. Requesting a large animal study to support an already extensive work is unreasonable.
Motivation:
We received two reviews: The first one did not provide any information other than the fact that the reviewer advocates of a different research tradition to the approach used in the paper. Weirdly the second reviewer had no idea about the methodological paradigm and method adopted in the study. - The journal claims to be open to various methodological and theoretical approaches. If this is the case, they need to assign manuscripts to competent reviewers. This review process was a waste of time for everyone involved.
Motivation:
The decision of lack of fit (a single phrase) took so long (7.6 weeks).
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected by the editor because of the low level of conceptual advance. Luckily, the editor's decision was quick, and we could transfer our manuscript to another journal.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled in an unprofessional, biased way from the part of the Editorial board. There were 2 reviews, the first explicitly recommending publication and praising the quality of the work, the second being very critique but without explicitly suggesting rejection in the comments. Without going into the details, the fact is that the major critique of the 2nd reviewer was a falsified claim of not comparing against recent methods, while the submitted article indeed contained a comparison against the #1 performing method in the domain, published in just the previous year. It was probably due to neglect from the reviewer that did not actually read through the article and the final responsibility of the editorial boards that just did not care.