Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Overall, the quality of peer-review is good. After submitted and passed the editorial screening, the manuscript was immediately sent to external reviewers. The online submission system clearly identified the progress of the paper, and the editor responses for the inquiry are also quite fast. The only problem was probably the reviewers' delay to send the review back to editors, and it might be case-specific.
Motivation:
The editorial assistant informed me that the editors deemed the article 'too technical' and hence more suited for a more 'specialised' journal. In general, this is a perfectly understandable explanation—provided, of course, that the statement can be backed up by the journal's track record, consistency, let alone recent publishing history. Even a cursory look through HTR volumes published last five years one may note several much more 'technical' articles, such that the editors' decision not to submit the paper to further peer-review process seems to have been done on a whim and hence unscientific.
Motivation:
Review process was fast, and the comments from reviewers were reasonable.
Motivation:
The first review process was quite long, due to one of the external reviewers being very late in his reply.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
The editor was very understanding and quick to react.
Motivation:
Review process was good at keeping us informed and editor comments were helpful. The journal provided a summary of reviewer comments rather than the raw comments which was helpful to know what the editor found important but I would also like to have seen the original reviewer comments. Response time was very good. I was not aware that they required a reviewer recommendation from countries other than any author affiliated countries, so that could be clarified in their system.
Motivation:
The time it took for an immediate rejection without review (3.6 weeks) seems unreasonably long.
Motivation:
Given that Christmas and New Year comprised the initial review period, and four reviewers provided comments, the initial review was timely. The comments from one reviewer were extensive, but they did help to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Article was handled professionally and promptly, but rejection was based on a reviewer report that showed lack of familiarity with the article's subject.
Motivation:
My only objective to the whole experience is that the rejection by the editor should be much faster, and not take 4 months!
Motivation:
The review process was reasonably fast. in particular the decision was super fast after we re-submitted the revision
Motivation:
very quick review process and very quick decision following resubmission
Motivation:
Reviews were constructive and useful and I really like the journal. My only wish was that the initial review process would be a lot quicker. It took 20 weeks to hear back after the first submission. This is for graduate students and postdocs too long, and not desirable for those for whom publication pressure is not that high either.
Motivation:
The reviewers' feedback was much delayed and the follow-up and feedback from the editorial manager's part was very slow and poor
Motivation:
With referring to the editor's comment, I would like to add that we have cited at least two papers on the same exact topic and "site specific" from the same country published by this journal a year before.
Motivation:
Seven months wait for one unnecessarily mean and obnoxious review. At least the editor picked a referee who appeared somewhat competent in the subject matter. Do not send to this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was surprisingly smooth, with a quick turnaround time. However, upon resubmitting the paper with major revisions, two of the three reviewers recommended immediate publication. One of the reviewers was till unhappy with the manuscript and did not have any real concrete suggestions or comments to improve the manuscript. He/She wanted us to redo some experiments that had already been published -- which involved cell cultures of 21 days, and hence the delay in the second resubmission. Other than this issue, we were satisfied with the review process.
Motivation:
The journal handled my manuscript quickly and sent it to very helpful referees.
Motivation:
Waiting for the first response was a bit long in my opinion (27.9 weeks) and there was only one reviewer. Review process after that point was very quick. Review was not very detailed (minor revision), but addressed some important points of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviews was professional, good and fair. However the editorial process is extremely slow and ineffective. First, the editorial office lost a contact with handling editor and it took them more then 2 months to re-assign the manuscript to another editor, Second, in any stage of the submission the manuscript is going through "quality check", which take at least a week. Third, the production of accepted manuscript is extremely slow as well. It took more than two weeks and additional communication with the production staff to get invoice and the proof of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Reviewer selection was poor, reviews were unconstructive and low quality, editorial input was minimal and defered to poor quality reviews.
Motivation:
Overall, the G3 review process was fast and fair. Our manuscript was properly evaluated on the work submitted both both the reviewers and editor.
Motivation:
Two referee comments within a reasonable time frame. Yet the referees were obviously both economists who (I) didn't competently engage at all with the philosophical substance of my paper and (ii) were hyper-critical of the experimental component of my paper (it was an X-phi paper). I've since been able to place this paper in a great journal, but be warned, if you're trying to publish a piece that involves formalism or an experiment the editors seem to hold you to the same standard practicing economists publishing in top econ journals are held too. This is ridiculous, as I've read lots of very bad philosophical pieces written by economists in this journal. Instead, I'd suggest you publish in PPE, Philosophy of Science or BJPS. They find reasonable reviewers for formal work.
Motivation:
Absolutely unprofessional. The editor misplaced (I was not aware this was even possible) our manuscript and sent previous versions of the manuscript to the reviewers. The whole review process (the almost 8 months!) were confusing and the editors were not reachable at any point.
Motivation:
Everything went very smoothly. I was timely informed about the Editor's decisions and the time frame for feedback was more than reasonable.
17.9 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Great reviews with extensive knowledge in the field (very narrow), however the time of first round of reviews was really long.
Motivation:
"With Editor" at Day 2. "Decision in Progress" from Day 2 to Day 10. Immediate rejection after 10 days - relatively long. Editor said paper wouldn't be interesting enough for their readers. Email said acceptance rate is 25%.