Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Note that this review is about OUP's Journal of Public Health, not about the Springer journal of the same name. Overall a good experience, fast and concise reviews.
Motivation:
Fast decision based on three-line review by the editors. Would submit there again anytime.
Motivation:
It was fast but lacks relevant contributions
Motivation:
Two months was a good response time to have completed external review, especially since we submitted at the beginning of the holiday season in the US. While our paper was rejected the two reviews were thoughtful, specific, and thorough, and we were able to use those comments to substantially improve the paper before submitting it elsewhere. I felt that the recommendation to reject our paper was justified by the quality of the reviews provided.
Motivation:
The editor in chief informed me that he turns down ~70% of submissions without peer review (after he reads them), and that my paper was not a tight enough fit for their primary audience of biodiversity scientists. I hoped it could work based on a few other papers similar to me published in the journal, but of course I respect the prerogative of the editor and appreciated the fast rejection.
Motivation:
I understand the issue of fit and appreciated the speedy rejection.
Motivation:
The editorial process was sufficiently informed and transparent, but it takes too long and the quality of the review reports was poor (but, considering the practice of Brazilian law journals, at least they were sent to me). There was no editorial control or consolidation of the peer reports. There was no editorial control on the corrections made in the article after the peer review. The editor was kind and replies the emails and questions. An exemplar of the printed journal was sent to me.
Motivation:
Manuscript was not given a sufficiently high priority rating during the initial screening process.
Motivation:
Very responsive editor, and excellent comments from knowledgeable peers that helped to frame the paper a bit better.
Motivation:
Review process was quick and overall manuscript quality is improved after the reviewer's comments.
Motivation:
My only complaint is the long time in review, much worse than other ACS journals in my experience.