Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Transfered from Advanced science with peer-reviewed comments, we directly submitted revised manuscript to Small. Editor then asked for a minor revision and accepted it.
Motivation:
Handling of manuscript was very good, review time was fast, reviews had a good quality and reviewers were interested in improving the manuscript.
Motivation:
A mini review for the special issue hosted by a colleague, very quick review process and two reviewers showed much interests in our paper. Minor revision has been made before acception by reviewers. APC is discounted. A pleasant publish experience. If APC are lower, i will consider submitting other works to this journal.
Motivation:
This journal has a very broad range of subjects and has numerous editors. Including the names of editors relevant to your field in your cover letter address or potential reviewers may make the process go more smoothly. In my case, I was happy to have an editor assigned to a well-known researcher in my field whose name I included in my cover letter.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
I included five potential reviewers in my cover letter, but it still seems difficult to find a second reviewer, so you may want to provide more potential reviewers.
About two months after the submission, I had yet to receive a response, so I emailed the journal, and they replied that they would prompt the one reviewer whose deadline had passed. The journal’s website states that they aim to make a first decision within 45 days, so if they miss that, you should try emailing them to check on the status.
Initially, I had added a sub-title colon “:” to the title, but the editor indicated that due to accessibility concerns, so it would be safer to follow that.
Motivation:
One reviewer considered the paper "ready for publication", one asked for many clarifications, and one only submitted confidential comments to the editor. From the comments we got, the rejection is a bit surprising, but obviously we don't know what was in the confidential comments -- which doesn't help us improve the manuscript. That's not the journal's fault, though.
Motivation:
Most of the reviewers comments were suitable for the text and imporved the manuscript.
Motivation:
Was submitted and published as an Engineering & Laboratory Notes article. The manuscript was therefore on the shorter side and probably expedited the review process.
Motivation:
We had a problem with the editor in charge not responding in the first three months after submission. We contacted the editor-in-chief and he asked the associate editor to take care of our paper. The Associated Editor's commitment far exceeded our expectations. As the responsible editor still did not respond, the Associated Editor took over the peer review process and we finally received the approval decision.
Motivation:
I was initially very happy with the quick turn-around and the three high quality reviews. Unfortunately, the process took a bit longer eventually (e.g., the paper was sent out to one of the reviewers for a third time because of a typo).
Motivation:
Overall the process was smooth. The time it took for the editors to accept the paper was a bit long, considering it was a rather minor revision, but the time frame was still very reasonable. The reviewers and editors were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
The decision was clear, both reviewers recommended rejecting the paper. The editor agrees that the paper is not a fit for the journal or specific subfield... why not desk reject? Got detailed comments that will help us move forward, though!
Motivation:
The overall review process took a reasonable amount of time. The production phase was a bit slow, taking almost 3 weeks. The quality of the revisions was average.
Motivation:
A Revista Texto & Contexto demora um pouco para responder sobre a avaliação, aceite ou recusa.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.
Suas sugestões de melhoria do artigo são importantes e necessárias para manter a qualidade do periódico que no Plataforma Sucupira esta com a Qualis A3 para Enfermagem.