Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewers made opposing recommendations (one to reject and other major revisions). The reviewers showed clear opposing appreciations. For example, one reviewer mentioned that it found the "contribution not strong enough to justify publication in one of the leading outlets in communications and PR research" and the other reviewer mentioned, about the same topic, "The information provided in this paper is new; at any rate, this reviewer is unaware of an equivalent study". The editor decided to reject (that is, to follow just one of the recommendations).
Motivation:
The handling of the paper was efficient and the review reports were so-so. That said, I would consider this journal again in the future.
Motivation:
Despite many rounds of review, it was overall a good process, and I would (and have) recommended this journal to colleagues.
Motivation:
Very good experience, could be a bit faster though.
Motivation:
The editor was very quick to take decision.
Motivation:
The handling and review time was very fast, considering how a high-impact journal it is.
The only minus is that I would have liked to read the referees' reports even if they were completely positive.
The only minus is that I would have liked to read the referees' reports even if they were completely positive.
Motivation:
Compared to previous experience the journal has improved its review time
Motivation:
The submission was quickly handled and two reviewers were quick to accept invitations of reviewing. The paper itself suffers from major problems in technical aspects, and lacks novel contribution, as acknoledged by the reviewer team, and I completely agree. The review reports are of high quality, harsh but fair, and I really benefited from them a lot, as they gave constructive criticism that actually help me find a new direction where I can better frame this research.
It was a long shot anyway, and I really appreciate that they took the effort and reviewed my paper.
It was a long shot anyway, and I really appreciate that they took the effort and reviewed my paper.
Motivation:
The review process was great and the comments added a lot to the manuscript.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
The only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review.
Motivation:
The review process was great and the comments added a lot, the only complaint I have is how long it took for the first review (about 3 months).
Motivation:
Quite decent comments. Review time is reasonable.
Motivation:
The review process is quick. reviewers provide helpful comments.
Motivation:
Very fast and pleasant procedure. Everything went smoothly
Motivation:
The review process was overall good, with progress updates along the way. The editor made useful comments of their own. The reviews were relatively fast and of good quality, although one reviewer was difficult to satisfy on a minor issue.
Motivation:
The editor found three competent reviewers, and the overall speed was on the faster side. We'll tackle the comments and submit to a different journal in a couple of days.
Motivation:
It took a long time for them to even decide if they would send it out for review, but once they sent it out, the entire process moved very quickly and smoothly.
Motivation:
The review process was very fast and smooth. The reviews were mostly fair and very helpful in identifying places for improvements. The editor handled the review process professionally.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally very good and greatly improved the paper, although on the second round one reviewer made confident (but incorrect) assertions about the results, so we appreciated that the editor was not overly swayed by these remarks and took a fair and considered view. The review process was a little on the slow side, but much better than how Cognition used to be. We were a little confused about the double blind review process that has recently been introduced. The submission system specifically asks you to confirm that all funding sources are acknowledged in the manuscript, but the manuscript was then returned to us because we included the funding information as requested. Then, after the second round, the editor indicated that the manuscript would be accepted with a small revision and would not undergo further review, but after sitting with Elsevier for a two weeks, the revised manuscript was returned to us again for not being anonymized (even though there was no real need for anonymization at this final stage). So, tip for the future submitters: Make sure everything is totally anonymous all the way to the end, and then fix the acknowledgements and anonymous OSF/prereg links at the proofs stage.