Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewers offered precise comments, and suggested many changes to the paper.
Motivation:
Quality communication, thorough feedback, all round good experience.
Motivation:
The editor to whom I submitted my article (via email - there is no online submission system) responded to confirm receipt promptly and informed me that the review process may take some time. Two months later, I received notification of acceptance, with two reviews: one by the editor to whom I submitted the article, and another by an external reviewer. The reviews were not anonymous: names were present in the comments. Suggestions for improvement (which were mostly minor) were genuinely helpful and resulted in an improved final product. The entire process was very professional and cordial.
Motivation:
Overall an OK, but rather slow, experience.
Motivation:
In spite of the unfavorable outcome I appreciate the very fast editorial processing.
Motivation:
The reviews came back within two weeks of submitting. One reviewer rejected the manuscript because we had made 'too many assumptions' in modelling our data, but did not specify what does assumptions were. The second reviewer suggested several model that we may use to analyse some of our data, which I found very useful.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely fast. The reviews were very positive and asked only for very minor changes to the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fast and the comments were easy to implement.
Motivation:
Reviews were reasonably fast and the comments were useful. I was overall very satisfied with submitting to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was quick and the comments made by the reviewers helped us improve the manuscript.
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.
Motivation:
The review process is very quick and helpful to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review was fast. The reviewers' comments were insightful and helpful.
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.
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.
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