Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very fast tournaround time. The editor is responsive and helpful. The reviews I received followed a standardized scheme, but could be more detailed and of higher quality.
Motivation:
3 months for a rejection without external reviewers
Motivation:
I felt the editor raised important points in rejecting the manuscript, even if I did not agree with them entirely. I used many of the comments to improve the manuscript, which helped get it published elsewhere. I appreciated that the editor shared my manuscript with a colleague to gain additional advice before making a decision.
Motivation:
I felt the process was smooth and reasonably fast. I never felt like the waiting periods were excessive, and and in general the comments were relevant and constructive. Editors responded to queries quickly and were accommodating regarding timelines for returning revisions.
Motivation:
The review was fast, and the APL system gives almost live data about the state of the manuscipt if one wishes to check. Though, it was obvious that one of the reviewers had not read the manuscript I am pleased how fast they were.
Motivation:
Quick decision.
Motivation:
The process was quite fast.
Motivation:
Good reviews which allowed the paper to be improved. My second experience with this journal and both times I found the review process to be fair.
Motivation:
Reviewers sometimes has contradicting advice, editor handled that well. Editor gave good input for what to focus on and was very precise. Also very quick in replies, delays were due to authors' lack of time. Sometimes editor was a bit too much involved, because editor also went as far to use track changes to change certain wording in the paper (e.g. changing argue into contend)
Motivation:
Editorial processing was extremely fast. It took 3 days from submission to the assignment of associate editor, and 30 days to get the 1st round of rereview. Reviews endorsed the publication of my manuscript 8 days after a moderate revision, and in the same day, the status changed from provisional acceptance to abstract online. The user experience of the submitting system and review forum was also excellent.
Motivation:
I appreciated that the rejection was quick.
Motivation:
Reviews were mixed. One was fine, the other
Motivation:
We submitted a presubmission inquiry and were asked to submit the full manuscript. Despite this it was rejected without external review.
Motivation:
Took too long for a decision of 'immediate' rejection.
Motivation:
Though the review was a thorough process, I was satisfied with the final accepted manuscript which increased my audience in the international research network.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 1.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
After 2 rounds of R&R, 5 reviewers, and more than 1.5 years, the article was rejected because one reviewer brought up new critical issues (that s/he had ignored at the previous round) and the other required further revisions. The editor changed his position from "I agree with the sentiment of most reviewers that this has the potential to be a very important paper" to "the prospects of getting the manuscript published at JOP are exceedingly slim" in one round of revisions (and about 6 months). That was a giant waste of time and energy.
Motivation:
Reviewers had good comments
Motivation:
The journal switched associate editors after my initial submission, and I honestly think my manuscript got lost in the process. After I pestered, there was a flurry of activity and reviewers were assigned. Six months later I pestered again, then another flurry of activity and reviews were submitted. Same story for the revised submission.
Motivation:
After 2.5 months of review I had to email the journal to enquire about the status after which we received an apology about the delay and a response saying the AE in-charge had been reminded. Within a few days we received the rejection with a single review. After 11 weeks. The reviewer was seeking clarification on analysis methods and was a little unconvinced by our cohort selection. I suspect the AE responsible for our M/S went to sleep on the job and in a squeeze recommended rejection on the basis of the only review he had scrounged up. Poor performance overall.