Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very professional approach by the editor and the reviewers.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was extremely different (both very positive, though): while one of them really understood the paper and made very useful suggestions, the other one made the impression that the reviewer was not familiar with some basic linguistic notions.
Motivation:
It was clear from the reviews that they were not competent enough in the specific topic.
Motivation:
I had the impression that all the reviewers and the editor took a lot of time to read the paper and make very constructive suggestions.
Motivation:
There was clear evidence that the editors had read the manuscript and appreciated it, but simply felt that the novelty and scope were not suitable for Neuron.
Motivation:
Too slow ending with a very short report by a solo reviewer or editorial member after 4 months
Motivation:
I was expecting a longer duration of getting the paper accepted since we reported a qualitative study. The editor was nice and provided constructive comments.
Motivation:
The review process was factual, thorough and speedy. I was highly satisfied with both communication with editor and commentaries addressed by reviewers.
Motivation:
Given both the contradictory conclusions provided by the reviewers and note of the Editor to try to shorten the manuscript for a completely new submission, I officially asked the Editorial Board to reconsider the decision on the manuscript. As the rewiever #2 considered the changes made in the resubmitted text as unsatisfactory, I provided an additional detailed explanation and justification of the whole manuscript and its rationale to the Editorial Board - including thorough justification of the only part that could not be fully satisfied to reviewer #2 (it concerned the shortening of the analysis section which would, however, in turn result to substandard analysis with oversimplified conclusions). However, the Chief Editor simply confirmed the previous rejection with an additional criticism to another issues not confronted in the previous steps of the review process.
Motivation:
I am a frequent submitter to WRR and always have a positive experience. In this case the reviews were a bit less rigorous than usual, but overall the process was easy, quick, and fair.
Motivation:
After my manuscript was sent to two reviewers (one with very positive comments and one more critical), the editor decided to reject the manuscript. Although some points raised by one of the reviewer and the handling editor were fair, I regret that there was no possibility to respond to these comments and resubmit a revised version... Otherwise, the delay of the review process was ok and the handling editor choice of reviewers was relevant (both reviewers signed their review, which is highly appreciable as an author).
Motivation:
The review process was very long and I think the second review process was not clearly justified, notably after taking into account previous reviewer comments during the first round. At the end it took more than a year, four reviews and a hesitating handling editor that did not want to take a clear decision, before my manuscript was finally accepted for publication. Such publication delays are not acceptable for a journal of this quality.
Motivation:
Review process a little slow, but still ok, reviews also sincere and good quality. Problem was, after the revised acceptance by the editor, the paper was held back for 15 (!) months before final publication. Pre-print was available online already, but no Issue number etc., so no proper citation was possible.
Motivation:
It took 14 weeks to get a rejection, which is not as bad as some journals. However, it seems a bit lengthy given that the rejections were not extremely deep. The criticisms were not petty for the most part, but they had completely overridden the positive reviewer's feedback.
Motivation:
The quick turn around time, even though it was a rejection, was good.
Motivation:
I waited 10 months to get the reviewers' opinions which were very succint. There is apparently a problem with this journal. The associate editor I exchange with was not able to contact the Chief Editor to send him my manuscript. I finally (after nine months and half of waiting and multiple dunning emails to the associate editor) decide to contact the Chief Editor myself who gave me a really fast answer in three days. The final version of the article was published two months after that.
Motivation:
The whole process took more than I expected, starting with the overzealous quality check, which, in my case, asked me to explain details that were clearly already written in the manuscript, as per observed editorial policies. Apparently they will not consider this the submission date, but only when it got past this check stage. We had no detailed feedback from one reviewer and a sober review from the other reviewer, which helped to improve the text. After the simple requested changes were made, a long time elapsed before the acceptance letter was sent. Also of interest for researcher awaiting an editorial response, after the tracking system showed the "decision made" status, it took almost two weeks before the decision was revealed to the corresponding author.
Motivation:
Manuscript status was "Editor assigned" in the submission system for six months. I contacted the editorial office staff and editors several times, after which I was assured the editor would be reminded to expedite the process. However, I was never contacted (I would have been satisfied with being told they needed more time to find reviewers). Wasted so much time waiting for them, submit at your own risk!
Motivation:
In retrospect the process was relatively painless but it felt very long during the review. Two weeks after the submission the manuscript was sent to review. Judging from the 'last activity date' two reviews were back within about 2 weeks but we were left waiting for 6 weeks. Upon our inquiry the editor decided to go with the reviews at hand -- then the manuscript remained "under evaluation" for a month before the decision. The reviews were of high quality, but not particularly different from the kinds we get for the society-level journals. Taking two weeks to revise, we resubmitted, and the manuscript was accepted in 10 days. Overall it took 15.5 weeks to get accepted after the initial submission. I believe this was a relatively uncontroversial case and it would have been accepted in less than two months at a society-level journal in our field, but the outcome was worth the wait.