Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process is quite long. The editor decided to send out the manuscript for review after two weeks upon initial submission. We received the comments from reviewers 8 weeks later. It seems that the whole process is time consuming and the manuscript tracking system is clumsy.
Motivation:
Taking nearly 6 months to reject a paper without even a referee report seems ridiculous to me.
Motivation:
Takes a bit of time from submission to allocation of manuscript number but very quick review and response
Motivation:
Review process took too long. Second round was not needed. Editor should have been able to make decision with our response to the first round.
Motivation:
Review process was relatively quick (although it missed the editor's target of 2 months by 50%). Once the article was accepted it awaited publication for another 11 months.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were pertinent, well-documented and demonstrated good knowledge of the field.
Motivation:
Reviewer critiques were extensive and well-documented. Reviewer feedback was useful in significantly revising and restructuring our manuscript before resubmission elsewhere.
Motivation:
Quick reviewing process with nice suggestions of the reviewers in the meantime that have contributed to improve final quality of the work
Motivation:
Minor corrections to the typesetting of equations took over one month for the publishers to correct. Response to questions about article status very slow. The stated expected turnaround of 4 months for peer review seems overly long - I received a request from the same journal to review an article within 3 weeks.
Motivation:
The reviewers suggested nice comments.
Immediately accepted after 3.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
Very nice journal regarding choosing reviewers and their comments.
Motivation:
I made significant changes to my original manuscript in response to comments from three peer reviewers (all supportive of my paper - recommending minor revisions to the structure and some additional references) and Special Issue editors (who were not supportive of my paper). The Special Issue editors did not accept my revised manuscript. However, the editor of the journal did like the paper so he recommended some further changes and asked that I consider resubmitting. I made these changes and resubmitted, wherein it was sent to new reviewers. These reviewers were also supportive of the paper, but suggested further extensive changes, many of which contradicted suggested changes from the first round of reviews and comments from the editor. Final result was the drafting of three (very different) versions of the same paper, all receiving different feedback. I gave up at this point. I was very dissatisfied with this process.
Motivation:
Very efficient review process. The only higher ranking energy journal I have written for where I believe the editors take a sincere interest in the papers that are accepted for publication.
Motivation:
Receiving reviews was very slow. However, the editorial team was efficient in providing feedback. The review comments (3 reviewers) were all high quality and contributed to an increase in the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response.
Motivation:
Very efficient journal. Clear communications. Peer review comments were brief and added value.
Motivation:
The submission was a short commentary paper. I believe the review process should have been shorter considering this.
Motivation:
My paper was submitted as part of a Special Issue. I did not receive any peer review feedback.
Motivation:
Thorough peer review comments received from both reviewers. Publication process was efficient.