Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviews were fair and the handling of the manuscript by the editor(s) also fair and professional. But the long time that this process took was surprising given my previous experiences with this journal, and this was not only due to slow reviewers – from what i could read in the online submission system it took over a month before the manuscript was even sent out to reviewers. This was a bit disappointing, but perhaps understandable: I can only guess that a significantly increased volume of manuscripts submitted to this journal has slowed down the review process. The journal continues to be a role model in handling of manuscripts and quality of reviewers, but the time lag has lowered its esteem in my view.
Motivation:
The review comments were fair and relevant on our case. The journal process was efficient. Reviewing proofs using SkyLaTeX was particularly pleasant.
Motivation:
Very slow handling of the manuscript with poor feedback. Very long time to decision for a letter to the editor manuscript (much long than the journal's average time to first decision)
Motivation:
Very fast review and publication process with a good level commentaries on review
Motivation:
JMIR provided a seamless submission and very professional and time efficient and valuable review process. The Editor and reviewers' comments were valuable and really helpful in improving the manuscript pre-publication. Great to experience that support, professionalism, effective and supportive communication and efficiency throughout the review process. This sets a benchmark for journal submission and review processes for scientific publications. Especially impressive given this is the leading journal in this area and has a high volume of submissions.
Motivation:
The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.
Motivation:
Very fast time from submission to final decision (letter to the editor)
Motivation:
Relative slow review process than expected. Reviewers read my paper carefully. Recommend.
Motivation:
The process was simple, but only one of the reviews provided a full review with explicit recommendations for improvement. Fortunately the associated editor provided useful feedback.
There were minor amendments required by the editorial office that delayed acceptance by a month in each instance, with the requirements on one occasion having already been dealt with previously. Amendments included confirming that a map was original and altering an ethics statement- which could have been handled quickly.
There were minor amendments required by the editorial office that delayed acceptance by a month in each instance, with the requirements on one occasion having already been dealt with previously. Amendments included confirming that a map was original and altering an ethics statement- which could have been handled quickly.
Motivation:
The actual review process was on time and the reviewer's comments actually improved the manuscript. However we experienced slow processing time before the manuscript was sent for review, and after the acceptance.
Motivation:
Initial reviews took a while, but communication with editorial team was very good and they kept me informed of progress. Most of the reviewer comments were helpful and of high quality.
Motivation:
The turnaround times for all editorial decisions was exceptionally slow. Even after we received 3 review reports indicating now changes were needed, it was almost 1 month before we received acceptance. The manuscript was accepted 6 weeks ago and does not appear in PubMed. I would be hesitant about sending a manuscript here if there were competition and a need for a timely editorial process.
Motivation:
I think the editor handled the manuscript fair and square. It is one of the prestigious journals in the field, and I am glad to see that it is handled well.
Motivation:
This manuscript would not have been achieved without the highly dedicated support of the reviewers who provided invaluable advice and recommendations on how to it could be restructured and revised. They clearly dedicated a significant amount of time to reviewing the paper and providing extensive review comments that led to a much stronger and more coherent paper.
Motivation:
The response from the response was rather quick, compared to many other journals. The comments were rather minimal, but they both spotted a couple of (potentially quite embarrassing) infelicities, which is very helpful.
Motivation:
With my rejection I received two quite detailed, extended reviews, which were very useful. The article was accepted by the next journal practically without corrections, which should be some indication of the quality of the reviews of JLA.
Motivation:
It was a short note for which I received some quite useful feedback with the acceptance.
Motivation:
My article submission was rejected without any peer review feedback. I requested feedback and received no response.
Motivation:
The first review round took much too long for a tentative acceptance outcome.
Motivation:
The journal advertises a mean time untl first decision is delivered of 25 days, but we had to wait for 2 months. The submission system worked fine. They only managed to get 1 reviewer for our manuscript, but given the theme, we were expecting it. The reviewer comments were fair and everything he/she said helped us to improve the quality of our mauscript.
Motivation:
The reviews were of very high quality, and the referee comments certainly improved the manuscript. The complete process outcome was positive. The editorial times, however, were very long: both the initial filtering and the final editorial changes took longer than the referee process itself, which we found surprising.
Motivation:
This paper essentially disappeared without trace for 8 months after I submitted it. I would periodically email the journal staff about it and they'd say that the action editor was still looking for reviewers. After 8 months, I emailed the action editor directly to say (very politely) that it was getting a bit ridiculous now. They were very apologetic and said that they only had one review but could make a decision based on that. They asked for minor revisions, which we completed within a few days. The paper was accepted without a second round of review, to our relief.
Motivation:
Although, the initially, 2 reviewers suggested major revision and one reviewer rejected the paper. The editor asked for a major revision which was made but the reviewer who rejected still didnt agree with the quality of the paper after the revision as well and later, the paper was rejected.
6.9 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted