Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Quite solid and fair reviews (one more so than the other), and solid editorial process overall. Only the overly aggressive copyediting took more work to fix than it should have.
Motivation:
Manuscript was handled very well. It took a while before an editor was assigned, but once it got assigned, we received the review reports rather fast, they were useful to improve the manuscript (it did not require heavy work as they were minor comments in general). After 1 round we resubmitted and 3 reviewers (2 from before and 1 new) checked the manuscript and accept for publication was the final decision. No further changes were asked.
Motivation:
Excellent review process, fast reviews, constructive reviews that improved the manuscript. Recommend journal for papers in the field of phycology.
Motivation:
Review process quite fast, publication after acceptance also very quick
Motivation:
The review process was very quick and the review comments were
very polite.　The points raised by the reviewers were important.
very polite.　The points raised by the reviewers were important.
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Overall, this review process was good, but it was slow. Reviewers had minor comments, but it took an incredibly long time to get feedback on resubmission.
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed and raised reasonable concerns. The process was very slow and did not offer up-to-date insights into the progress.
Motivation:
Handling was reasonably fast, and the report was honest and to the point. Referee also pointed out to few math typos to fix.
Motivation:
A reasonably quick turnover compared to other journals, and especially the decision not to send out the manuscript a second time actually speeds up things considerably.
Motivation:
The review reports received were interesting, however it was a bit strange that it ended with a rejection as they did not seem that negative.
Motivation:
Overall the process was nice. The only hickup was that editorial manager showed that the first round of reviews were completed approximately one and a half months before we were informed about the decision.
Motivation:
The two reviewers made fair points and the comments were very critical. We think they did not understand the innovative aspect of the manuscript, and the limitations we had.
Motivation:
The communication with the Editors was smooth. The submission process was easy. The reviewers read our paper carefully. Overall, great experience.
Motivation:
I don't think the reviewers gave careful enough consideration to our paper. We rewrote it nevertheless and published it elsewhere - this could have been done at the same journal, had they not rejected it. I have to note that the initial submission took quite a lot of work.
6.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was transparent with proper communication and responses. The editor, handling editor and assistants are very helpful. The reviewers are well qualified and provide valuable comments to improve the overall manuscript content and presentation. I will definitely recommend this journal for my colleagues.
Motivation:
Commendable reviews by the SIVP reviewers.
Motivation:
Very good and friendly editor. Nice handling of the manuscript. Gives own input as well.
Free Open-access journal!
Free Open-access journal!