Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Two relevant reviews within a reasonable amount of time
Motivation:
Received three half-page reviews which made clear that the reviewers did not like the manuscript, but were not particularly engaged or constructive.
Motivation:
This decision could be taken in one week maximum. It is more than enough to check the manuscript suitability. In this journal the same decision took about three months.
Motivation:
Editor-in-chief answered promptly and was helpful. Online tracking system is functioning well. We feel that the review process increased the overall quality of the paper. Reviewers were familiar with the area of research and comments were thorough and knowledgeable, and took only 4 weeks.
Motivation:
Reviews was usefull and reviewers looks very expierenced in the field of our research. Reviewers works fast. A littlle bit long time paper have status "with editor".
Motivation:
The review process was very fast. Reviewers comments was useful. Totally ol review process looks very well.
Motivation:
The length of the first review was exceptionally long. However, the editors were responsive to my inquiries during the lengthy review
Motivation:
Editor was balanced and appreciative. Quality of review reports was reasonable.
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).
Motivation:
Slow initial handling – it took over a month to assign an editor to the submission and then another few weeks before this editor sent the manuscript to external reviewers. Lean and personal communication in later stages of the review process however makes up for some of the delays caused initially.
Motivation:
Overall, an excellent, high-quality and speedy review process.
Motivation:
Conditional acceptance after 8 months waiting. Not sure what hold-up was. Only received comments from one referee as well.
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.