Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fast rejection due to subject not being compatible with journal's interests.
Motivation:
Rejected due to methodological approach incompatible with journal's interest.
Motivation:
Short but adequate justification.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Fast rejection due to article's subject, journals in other fields suggested.
Motivation:
Fast editorial rejection due to article's subject, journal suggestions offered.
Motivation:
Fast rejection because article was publicly available as working paper, violating submission rules.
Motivation:
Submission fee excessive, lack of response to status requests, article not sent to referees and editorial report justifying rejection was short, mediocre and wrong after holding the article for more than one year.
Motivation:
Editorial rejection review was precise, knowledgeable and respectful.
Motivation:
Reviews were ok but could have been sent to reviewers knowing more about the scientific subjects - most critics were about adhering to journal standards, figures etc. First round of review took a bit too long.
Motivation:
Rejection because of critics from 2 out of 3 reviewers. The reviews were detailed, although not everything was well understood methode-wise. One week less would have been ok, but 7 weeks for rejection is quite long and an annoying loss of time.
Motivation:
Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Motivation:
Editor was balanced and reasonable. Review report was good. Second round was quite fast. The single less satisfactory aspect was that only one reviewer was consulted.
Motivation:
CEJPP was very professional in this handling my manuscript. The editor-in-chief even emailed me to notify me that the second reviewer had not delivered their report on time. The journal appointed a reviewer immediately and the entire process was very expedient.
Motivation:
The review process was very transparent with the editor being very open about the time schedule. The reviews I received were of good quality and helpful. The entire process was swift.
Motivation:
Editorial decision was made within 2 days and first review round was very quick. reviewer's comments were very much relevant for improving the further quality of the manuscript. In short, the whole process was very quick and efficient.
Motivation:
This was a submission for a special issue. Everything went smoothly, and I got excellent feedback form the editors, as well as good and constructive comments from the reviewers.
Motivation:
While I was initially impressed with the speed of the first review round, the second one felt like an eternity, so I contacted the editor about the status of my manuscript. I was very politely informed that they had been having trouble with the first reviewer, had attempted to muster alternative reviewers, and finally had to wait for the first reviewer to come around. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which in this case may have been a disadvantage.
Motivation:
It took quite a while for the first round to come to a conclusion, so I had almost forgotten about the manuscript. However, I was happy to hear that the manuscript would be accepted after some minor changes. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Motivation:
I originally thought that PRL would offer a lightning-fast reviewing process. While this is partially true, the entire process was drawn out because (1) we submitted right before the busy (and holiday-infested) month of December, (2) because 6 authors had to agree on changes to the manuscript, which meant that revisions took longer, and (3) because one reviewer insisted on a second round. PRL's editorial actions are very well reflected in their online system, so that one is always aware of the whereabouts of the manuscript and reminders having been sent out to the referees. So although the entire process took half a year, I am still impressed.
Motivation:
I could not believe when I held two lengthy reviewers' reports in my hands within less than three weeks after submission. The revision was drawn out somewhat by the birth of my daughter, and the second viewing took the reviewers a bit longer. However, the entire process was fast, efficient, of high quality, and agreeable.
Motivation:
With the first round taking 7 weeks and producing 3 referee reports (2 of which were excellent), I feel that the quality of our manuscript was increased considerably due to the requested revision. The referees of the two excellent reports then quickly accepted the revised manuscript with a one-liner. Overall, JPD did a great job of handling the entire process.
Motivation:
One reviewer was really great, explaining in details what s/he expects and why. I still thank the person until this day. The other reviewer was just arrogant, and was unwilling to accept views that are not his or hers. The editor is sub-par. I feel very sad to say that, but the editor apparently didn't care about the hard work authors invested in the manuscript. He also flipped his guidance. In the first R&R he mentioned things that are critical to fix for acceptance. We fixed all that in the second R&R, but he still rejected us. He rejected our paper despite the fact that one reviewer recommended acceptance.
There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
Motivation:
The review process took very long time, even though the manuscript was submitted as rapid communications. The next day after we sent a enquire about the review progress to the editor, we received very short review in which rejection of the manuscript was recommended.
Motivation:
The process was quite slow. The first review round took over half a year which is way too long. The editor had a good touch and the reviewers were knowledgeable.
Motivation:
I was pleased with the quick but detailed and useful reviews I received from GRL, and the editor was quite efficient in handling the manuscript. Overall a very positive experience.