Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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
Motivation:
I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense.
Motivation:
In overall it was quite good collaboration. The communication between author and editor was on time, no delays in answers. The reviews were helpful and constructive. The manuscript submission system was very helpful in order to provide the account for the funding institution.
Motivation:
The journal editor was prompt and courteous, and the review process was particular speedy—less than 2 month, which is almost unheard of in the guild. The review was on the brief side and not particularly conducive to meaningful revisions (more along the lines of comments rather than concrete suggestions), but still helpful. A downside of the publishing (rather than the review) process is the fact that the journal has only two issues per year, so the pipeline is incredibly long (it can take up to 1.5 yrs for an article to appear).
Motivation:
Lost editor during summer, although PLoS stated that the new editor would take delay into account, it stool took 15 weeks before we had an outcome. Review reports were brief but fair. Second round of reviewing went faster.