Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not understand the methods and techniques described in the paper.But they still took 4 months for the decision.The first revew should come witin 34 days.
Motivation:
Nice experience: very detailed and prompt reviews by knowledgeable experts, supported by a very good communication with the editor. After acceptance, the paper was proofread by the publisher (Taylor & Francis), improving the style. The only downside is that it took some time that the paper appears published online, more than it is usually the case with other publishers. But overall the whole process was quicker than I expected.
Motivation:
9 months spent reviewing. I received a report only from referee #3.
Motivation:
The comments received from reviewers were mostly helpful, but the reason for the rejection (instead of revise and resubmit) was not given.
Motivation:
I got my manuscript accepted without any need for revisions. However, it took 11 months for Lubrication Science to arrive to this verdict. I sent emails to the Associated Editor three times to complain about the long review duration. She would send the apologizing messages back every time.
Motivation:
Reasonable comments but slow, probably due to the editors.
Motivation:
- receiving the reviews after three months is okay, I think.
- some delays were caused by myself as it took me some time to improve my text.
- the reviews were good, most of them included very good comments and questions, the tone was citical but friendly.
- as far as I know, the text was reviewed by philosophers as well as by psychologists
- some delays were caused by myself as it took me some time to improve my text.
- the reviews were good, most of them included very good comments and questions, the tone was citical but friendly.
- as far as I know, the text was reviewed by philosophers as well as by psychologists