Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was, at first, very satisfactory. We received a high quality report from the reviewer and the overall time spent in stage of reviewing and revising the manuscript was comparably short.
However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published.
During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received.
These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.
However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published.
During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received.
These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.
Motivation:
Great comments from competent reviewers. Editor was very responsible and quick to act. Excellent.
Motivation:
Fast response with rejection due to lack of subject fit.
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were fair and useful. However, the review process took a long time, as did the publication of a printed version
Motivation:
The time to first review was very slow, especially for a journal that advertises itself as accelerating science. However, given the speed at which the manuscript was processed after resubmission, the delay may have been on the reviewers end more than the journal. One of the reviews had very little substance and was not very helpful but the second was generally good.
Motivation:
I missed more information on the actual reason for its rejection, but I appreciate promptly providing this information to allow submitting the manuscript to another journal without delaying too much publication times
Motivation:
Although the editor stated that the manuscripts was of interest to this journal's community, it was rejected on the grounds of: "We are receiving far more submissions than we can currently publish and therefore have to reject many good papers". This journal has published many similar articles on the same topic (many of which are of lower scientific merit in my opinion). Rejecting a manuscript based on space constraints rather than a sound scientific reason is disappointing.
Motivation:
i work hardly to publish my firs paper in this journal, unlucky it was not event send to review..
Motivation:
Very fast reviews, with middle-quality reports. I would recommend this journal to a colleague only if a fast publication is necessary.
Motivation:
After more than 6 months, reviewers were still not assigned. Furthermore, it was almost impossible to have a feedback from the editor. Very bad.
Motivation:
Long time (3 months) for the first review step, but useful feedback from reviewers.
Motivation:
High quality reviews provided in less than 1 month, even if generally 2-3 review&resubmit cycles are necessary. The manuscript quality was strongly improved, and the overall reviewing process was quiet fast. Strongly recommended.
Motivation:
Great. It is quite popular and well-known Journal.
Motivation:
I received 4 different reports, but very redoundant.
Motivation:
Editor based rejection on his/her own reading of the manuscript. No reason was given. But response time was very quick at least
Motivation:
In general handling was good. One slight critical thing could be that the overall process took quite substantial time in contrast to other journals.
Motivation:
Relatively fast decision but reason offered for rejection came from people without knowledge of the scholarship in the field.
Motivation:
It took time to publish in this journal but I think JCL consider quality and rigour in Publication.
Motivation:
Speedy process and thorough reviews and editiorial letter which taught me that the manuscript did not fit in well with the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
I received a thorough letter from the editor, one detailled, thorough, and helpful review and a second review that was merely one sentence long. It took around 3 months from submitting my revision to the acceptance, even though the manuscript was not sent out to reviewers again. Overall a good experience though.
Motivation:
Fast editorial decision. Well explained, even if we do (obviously) not agree with the result. I would recommend submitting. Friendly and helpful contact.
Motivation:
Largest problem was the time between beeing accepted and beeing published, which took almost another year. Yet, process was good and reviewer were competent.
Motivation:
The reviews were the best I've ever received. The associate editor was really helpful and acted as a third reviewer. On the other hand, it took a year to have the manuscript accepted, so it was a really long time.
7.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviews were very helpful and the overall process was very fast.
Motivation:
Article was considered too technical for the journal readership.
Motivation:
The reviewers' remarks were easy to address. When we asked the editor to reconsider, she stated the one of variable represents oversimplification of the issue. It was something we could not change by re-writing. This type of concerns should make the editor to reject the paper from the start and not to make us wait for 4 month.
7.9 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer's suggestions mostly contributed to the manuscript and the most important was that the editor gave a chance to correct. I had similar remarks regarding my paper at another journal and the editor did not give any chance to correct. Based on my experience with Prof. Palermo, he gives a chance to address the remarks, even they seems very complicated.
Motivation:
The objections raised in the initial review round were mostly fair though it was clear from the comments that one of the reviewers was not an expert in the field. After addressing the objections raised in the initial review, that reviewer simply didn't bother reading our revised manuscript and just repeated the same objections in the second review round. In our response we pointed out that the reviewer's objections were already previously addressed and even mentioned it to the editor. However, the editor chose to reject the manuscript based on that reviewer's comments. A subsequent appeal was also rejected because the original reviewer declined to look at the manuscript again.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
Aside from the unprofessional reviews and poor editorial handling, every step of the process required an inordinate amount of time, something that seems to be endemic to this journal which should therefore be avoided.
Motivation:
Reasonably good reviewing and management times. Reviewers comments were of good quality and contributed to improve the final version of the work.
Motivation:
Fair process. Proposition to resubmit if new data could be added regarding the editor's comments.
Motivation:
Our reason for withdrawing the article was that for more than 3 months
the editor was not able to find any reviewer to read our paper.
the editor was not able to find any reviewer to read our paper.
Motivation:
This journal was the 4th journal we submitted the paper to. So, it already have been through 2 reviews in other journals. We adjusted the paper each time. Therefore, we understand why the reviewers did not write any significant suggestions. The editor also addressed the manuscript. His review was very vague since he asked us to go through all the journal's guidelines. We did it, but we were not sure what was expected of us. It would be helpful if the editor was more specific. Nevertheless he was very nice to us and the article was accepted.