Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Fair criticism, but I had hoped for a major revision/reject&resubmit. Moreover, over 20 weeks for the first review-round is a bit long.
Motivation:
It is unfortunate that one should have to wait 15 weeks for a rejection supported by 5 sentences of a review where the reviewer, despite being overall appreciative of the quality of the material presented, quibbles about general matters and criticises the author for not tackling something (i.e. significance of the data presented), which in fact I spent about 1/3 of the article discussing. Did the reviewer actually read the whole article? I'm honestly not sure. This is a shameful addition to the track-record of the journal that boasts rejection of 80% manuscripts sent for a review. Maybe it is not just the quality of drafts but also the reviews that feeds into this, at first sight impressive, competitiveness-rate!
Motivation:
The Journal offered a speedy, yet rigorous, review procedure. The review wasn't all too brief: the reviewer went into some length with his most accurate summary of the overall argument of the article as well as the data presented therein. All the suggestions for improvement (all mostly minor) were useful and resulted in welcome improvements. There were also various suggestions for grammatical and stylistic improvement, which were useful as well
Motivation:
In terms of quality of the peer-review, BASP has proven to be the most rigorous journal in my publishing experience. For my lengthy analytical article, I was given two 4-page reports written by clearly the top two authorities in my field. (The reports were anonymous but the level of details into which these two scholars went when reviewing my piece clearly was clearly indicative of who was involved.) The reviewers exhibited clear understanding of the argument as well as the materials under analysis; they spotted numerous content errors and inaccuracies and made positive suggestions, all of which resulted in substantial improvements to the piece.
Motivation:
I would have appreciated to receive some proper 'review' (rather than a mere request to correct one typographical error), which would have improved the content of the article. It seems that ExpT don't offer this—at least in my case they didn't.
Motivation:
There was no actual review included in the decision. I was given a generic announcement of acceptance followed by a brief list of typos. I think it'd have been beneficial if the journal provided a slightly more extended feedback to the author as I think that my article would have profited from some suggestions for minor revisions (as is usual in the review process). Otherwise OK.
Motivation:
The editor was fair and the manuscript was declined with an excellent review from the editors of the journal. So it helped us to improve a lot the manuscript before resubmission
Motivation:
The manuscript was well handled by the journal. The problem was more the reviewers who made comments that could be addressed or answered easily. As the reviewer advised the editor that they don't want to see the paper published in this journal, thus any appeal was unlike succeed.
Motivation:
The review experience with this journal was mostly positive. The first round of comments improved the manuscript greatly, as well as the second round. However, my experience is not excellent because the duration to receiving the editorial decision was slightly disproportional with the amount of changes that I had to make.
Motivation:
I had the fortune of the manuscript being accepted without any further changes based on a single (very short & positive) review.
Motivation:
The reviews we got were very detailed - partly, criticism was warranted, but one reviewer tried to change the scope of the paper from a theoretical framework to an empirical study, which was the reason we finally withdrew the manuscript. After receiving the first review, we asked a question concerning the reviewer's suggestions to the editors via e-mail, which was answered as late as two months later (and after several inquiries from our part).
Motivation:
Manuscript was handled in a very efficient and quick way. Input from one of the reviewers was very poor, basically just recommending the addition of 5 own papers to reference list. This type of reviewing should be excluded and the reviewer cautioned. Input from the other reviewer was detailed, useful and constructive.
Motivation:
It took 8 months and a couple of inquiring emails to finally hear back from the journal after submission and receive reviewers' comments. Nevertheless, reviewer reports were detailed, pertinent, considerate and extremely useful to improve the paper. Handling editor was friendly, but handling process was inefficient. Communication was poor, and I only got the final decision letter after editor realised that the journal had already sent me the proofs to revise...
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with appropriate justification. Editors at ASR even took the time to comment on the paper, and suggested alternative publications channels.
Motivation:
The review was detailed, perceptive, and helpful. The reviewer spent more time discussing specific details (esp. minutiae pertaining to the data such as presentation and accuracy) than the overall argument, with which he/she seemed to have been in agreement (maybe that's why?). The review was well-informed and enhanced the article (not to mention that it spared the author from several errors, some of them embarrassing). What was particularly superb about this publishing experience was the most excellent copy-editing, for which the journal utilises the famous Dr Iveta Adams of CUP. It is for a good reason that NTS is considered the top-tier journal in the field. Every detail receives adequate attention.
Motivation:
We received 3 reviews. One of them was excellent. We did a lot of work to satisfy this reviewer opinion. Another reviewer was focusing in minor details, which also improved the paper. The last one did a short review. So on the average the review was OK. The first and second reviewer demands really improved a lot the paper, so we were happy with that. Once the manuscript was accepted, the proof-reading and final editing was extremely quick and efficient.
Motivation:
Understandable, well described reason for rejection. Reviewers were knowledgeable and provided useful feedback.
Motivation:
From the first review 2 out of 3 reviewers gave very positive comments, but the 2 very positive review reports were ignored and it was sent out for a second review with the one negative reviewer again, and another reviewer.
Motivation:
Reviewers comments were clear and easy-to-follow. They improved the quality of the work and not just the way it was presented.
Motivation:
Reviewer comment were clear and the overall process was fast. The communication with editor and journal staff was excellent.
Motivation:
I ended up having to change the originally submitted manuscript significantly, but I liked the new approach and I think the quality was improved.