Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The review reports were prompt. The final decision was prompt also.
Motivation:
Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper.
Motivation:
Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject.
Motivation:
Quick and fair review
Motivation:
This was the worst publication experience in my career.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, though unfortunately quite slow (typical for linguistics journals). One of the reviewers didn't really understand the point of the paper but the two others were quite good, critical and helpful. Time until final decision took a bit long again.
Motivation:
Relatively fast review process, especially quick acceptence after revision.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed but focused principally on style and were contradictory ("thesis should be emphasized more at the outset" / "thesis presented too bluntly... can take more time to develop"), so they did not help in developing the essay.
Motivation:
The review was detailed and helped by pointing to a missed source on the subject. The editor was quick to respond to questions and the process went very smoothly.
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed and helped improve the article on several points. The process went very smoothly even with a change of editors mid-process.
Motivation:
Although the initial review took a while, the editor was quick to communicate throughout the process, the reviewers were clear about the positive aspects of the article and what needed some clarification, and the process went very smoothly.
Motivation:
A little slow with reviews, but overall a good process. This journal also provides detailed status updates on their author portal so you always know what stage it is at.
Motivation:
I perceived the quality of the review as disappointing. To my opinion, the overall conclusions were merely based on perceptions/opinions about the content and context instead of a proper understanding of both. Several comments on the content were incorrect but stated as facts. Other comments I perceived as outside the purpose and scope of the paper. Some comments left the question: “Did the reviewer really read this article or only parts of it?” One reviewer was on the edge of being rude and offensive without giving a proper motivation. There may be valid reasons to reject a paper, but then, be relevant, precise and constructive. The quality of the review is by far not in proportion to the effort that was put into this work. It is not all bad. There are some valuable and constructive comments which I am grateful for. And I hold myself fully responsible for how others perceive my work.
Motivation:
Of the two papers I've had published with this journal so far, this first one was to date among the longest and most challenging review processes. The length of time overall may appear understandable given the 3 reviews that had to be undertaken. However, receiving the first review 7 months after initial submission is in my opinion of very low caliber. Followed by a further 7 months and then 1.5 months for the other reviews, it is my opinion that no review process should take this long, particularly if the paper was of fairly standard length.
Motivation:
Comments were detailed and helpful. Everything was handled promptly.
Motivation:
My paper theme and journal's aim and scope do not have a close match. However, editor took it forward for review, as my paper theme can contribute to the body of knowledge that journal focuses on. The editor followed the reviewer's comments and suggested me to submit by formalizing a model that extends government and software engineering paradigms. Moreover, the reviewers could not differentiate between capability and capacity indicating that they could not follow my paper. They did not understand the model used in my paper and felt that my paper is focusing only on communication between and among projects. Given the context in which my paper has been taken forward for review a careful selection of reviewers could have helped me in getting meaningful comments to further improve the paper.