Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
Motivation:
Editorial decision seemed out of line with recommendations of reviewers.
Motivation:
Decent duration of the review process. Two out three reviews of good quality, which certainly improved the manuscript, although the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
The paper made a pretty provocative claim, so I understand that the reviewers did not quite like it (although one reviewer was quite sympathetic). I wonder, though, why it would take more than 6 months to get reviewers for a double-spaced 12 page paper.
Motivation:
Everything was excellent, except review which arrived late.
Motivation:
The review was returned in one day, with a rejection. However, a year later, another paper in the same area (and equally interesting results) was published.
Motivation:
One review consisted of only one negative sentence. This reviewer did not comment on a conceptual advance or the scientific quality but only on significance to the field although the journal explicitly stated in their policy that only scientific quality and not significance is rated. Both rounds of review were in good time but a quite negative experience was the quality check with unspecific and unjustified comments with a considerable loss of time and the requirement to upload each part of the manuscript again and again.
Motivation:
The reviews were good, except for one reviewer who took too long.
Motivation:
One review was thorough and helpful.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
Motivation:
This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
All of my correspondence with the editor was courteous and professional. Although I did not receive the reviews as the reviewers wrote them, the editor provided a brief but specific summary combining their comments. I was able to use this feedback to improve the article to send it elsewhere.
Motivation:
All of my interaction with the editorial assistant of the journal was pleasant and professional, and I have no complaints about the experience.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected, I did not receive any comments from the reviewers concerning the reason the manuscript was rejected.
Motivation:
The journal handled the manuscript promptly, courteously, and professionally. The reviewer report that I received interacted with the article in detail and specificity, commenting on its strengths and weaknesses in organization, argument, discussion of primary literature, and interaction with secondary literature. I have consequently been able to revise my article according to all of the comments I received from the reviewer and have submitted it to another journal.
Immediately accepted after 10.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
As far as I know, the article wasn't sent for an external anonymous review, and hence I didn't receive any feedback or suggestions for improvement—apart from a few editorial notes and corrections on the already accepted draft. I think the article would have profited from a more rigorous review, not to mention copy-editing (which seemed minimal if at all present—most people on the editorial board are not native English speakers and the publisher is German). Overall, however, the editorial and publishing process was smooth and speedy and the article appeared in print within 7 months of submission—something almost unheard of in humanities journals!
Motivation:
The only reason given for rejection by the editorial staff was "Unfortunately, the topic covered in your manuscript is out of our editorial intentions." Since the journal claims a very broad range of topics of interest, (including mathematical modelling, which my article was about), I have difficulty understanding this basis for rejection. I sense that the journal leans towards the interests of the editors, rather than sticking to a stated field of interest.
Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Motivation:
The process of submitting an article to JGR was smooth and transparent the whole way. Both the reviewers provided constructive feedback which helped improve the quality of the paper and as the review points were addressed satisfactorily, the revised paper was accepted. The entire process from submitting to revision to acceptance took 5.5 months.
Motivation:
This was an invited article, with the abstract approved by a section editor. After two rounds of peer-review, the journal decided to no longer proceed with this invitation. The amount of work that went into this paper was immense and as the article was tailored as per the journal's request it will be difficult to submit this article to a different journal. This was an extraordinarily poor experience.
Motivation:
For my manuscript, the reviewers might have spent a lot of time for review. Actually, their comments substantially improved my manuscript and now it started getting citations also and getting followed by the intended research community.
Motivation:
When I first submitted to this journal the editor gave great recommendations and asked that I resubmit it as a brief. I did this and I got two reviews. One wrote a one line recommendation to add literature and the other just rambled on about why he didn't agree with the argument of the paper. Absolutely terrible.
Motivation:
The reviewing and editorial process took three rounds of comments and revision, after this manuscript was submitted and subsequently rejected in 2015, with comments from the same two reviewers who reviewed the new manuscript this year. Especially the process of keeping the editorial decisions in the hands of the Associate Editor, and then have the Executive Editor comment yet another time delayed the process. The process however did ensure a high publication quality, and a very significant involvement of the editors with their journal output, which is the most important.
Motivation:
The evaluation process was correct. The original manuscript was sent to specialists. The comments were helpfull to improve the final manuscript. The evaluation time was optimal. Sinceresly I recomend this journal.
Motivation:
The rejection in combination with very detailed comments from reviewers allowed us to take the time to revise and improve the manuscript significantly, without too much time pressure.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to Editor´s verdict. One of the referees suggested acceptance of the manuscript while the other suggested rejection. The editor decided to take in account the second referee.
Motivation:
The first review round took over 6 months. However, the editor has been very accomodating in terms of the revisions in response to the reviews. Also, I got an extension of two weeks for submitting the mionor revisions.
Motivation:
We were in general happy with the pace and level of communication received during the submission and review process. This seems to be an efficiently run journal.
Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.
Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.