Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast, would submit there again.
Motivation:
Though rejected, the prompt response seems very fair, professional and encouraging to pursue a better fitting journal.
Motivation:
Fast and thoughtful review, and excellent communication from the editor throughout the process. The journal even helped to promote the manuscript after publication via their blog and social media.
Motivation:
I understand where one of the reviewers was coming from (the one who was most dissatisfied with our revisions) but I also felt that we'd done a good job explaining in our revision why we disagreed with the fundamental critique and request for eliminating a portion of our paper.
Motivation:
I think it has a good editorial board. Because they have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and have seen the potential of my manuscript after the first decision. So they gave me another change by requesting a major revision. In addition, this journal accepts Latex format as the recommended one which is a good point since Latex compilers are Open Source and free to be used by everyone.
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent and really improved the paper. Turnaround time from reviewers and the editor was very quick. This was probably the best experience I've had with a journal so far.
Motivation:
The review reports were of high quality and contained many helpful comments. The amount of time for reviews, revisions and editorial decisions was appropriate.
5.4 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
11.9 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The experience with JERA is excellent
Motivation:
The review reports were not strong to reject the paper. These review reports were not even useful for improving the paper.
Motivation:
Fast process, and reasons for rejection were explained. It was evident that the editor had read the paper.
Motivation:
Both reviewers stated, with reasonable justification, that the study was not novel enough for Nature Communications and would possibly be more suitable for a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
Smooth and fast process
Motivation:
Several weeks after submission the editorial office told me (upon request) that they didnt assign an editor to handle the manuscript yet. After 3 months I got an email rejecting the paper as not suitable for the journal, without any further explanation.