Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Both the review process and article processing were quite fast, as promoted by the journal. Despite the fast initial review time, one of the review reports was useful and gave us concrete ideas how to improve the manuscript, while the other was slightly haphazard. With the article processing fee lowered to a much more attractive $750 for 2018, I would definitely consider sending and particularly transferring papers to ACS Omega also in the future.
Motivation:
Comments on our manuscript were very helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was very long, we waited about 6 months to hear any thing about our manuscript from the editor, after that, we emailed the editor to inform us about it. He did not response but few days later we received the review reports.
Motivation:
Very long first review round, especially for a minor revision.
Motivation:
Went through two revisions, but the reviewers were quite helpful to improve the manuscript, with the editor helping navigate the comments (especially where I did not agree with the reviewers).
Motivation:
Review process was really long (8 to 10 weaks in average), and there was no such information on the journal website - it was given after submission. Paper was rejected mainly due to theoretical issues. Some of the comments were very useful and helpful. Nevertheless, two of three reviewers made obvious errors, which in our opinion could be easily avoided during careful reading of the manuscript.
Motivation:
I found the majority of the reviewer's comments constructive and relevant. All authors found the manuscript improved after the peer-review proces. The time from submission to assignment of reviewer was acceptable and the time from submission of revised manuscrip to acceptance was swift.
Motivation:
The review process was good. The reviewers were encouraging and the review time wasnt too much!
Motivation:
The whole process was drawn out with many delays. We didn't receive out initial reviewer's reports until 11 weeks after submitting as they had trouble finding the right expert to review the paper. We had to contact the editor on multiple occasions for updates on the manuscripts progress.
Motivation:
Although the first review did take some time, the comments from reviewers were good and both understand the paper and the scope of the work. After our answers, both were very happy about the changes