Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review reports were very useful. My only reason for not giving an overall 'Excellent' rating for this journal is that the review process could be a little bit shorter.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews from qualified, competent reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
Reasonable response time on original submission.
However, despite highly favorable reviews from both reviewers, editor sent revision out for re-review. Should have been easy (fast) revaluation & response by editor without need to re-review. This process took 2 months longer than necessary and placed excess burden on reviewers.
Motivation:
Competent reviews from diverse panel of reviewers. Reasonable response times at all phases of process.
Motivation:
Reviewing process is smooth and valid reasons for rejection were given
Motivation:
The process took slightly longer than expected, but we received high-quality reviews which substantially improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
All reviews were helpful, constructive and thus made publication of our work a reachable goal.
Motivation:
Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper.
Motivation:
The editor and reviewer argued that if the revisions did clarified several issues and resulted in a much clearer manuscript, however, they did had serious concerns regarding the novelty of this study relative to the previous one by two of the authors ".
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
I found such comments inappropriate after a third revision of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It requires a quite short paper with many restrictions but the review was fair. They wrote that the decision was made without reviews because the Editor's initial assessment indicated that the manuscript would not be appropriate for mBio. They suggested mSphere or mSystem for the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The review reports were prompt. The final decision was prompt also.
Motivation:
Comments from three (reasonable) referees which motivated helpful changes to the paper.
Motivation:
Very slow review process but the reviewers' comments were fair and constructive.
Motivation:
This journal was fast and responsive. Also, I felt that reviewers are very familiar with the subject.
Motivation:
Quick and fair review
Motivation:
This was the worst publication experience in my career.
Motivation:
Good quality reviews, though unfortunately quite slow (typical for linguistics journals). One of the reviewers didn't really understand the point of the paper but the two others were quite good, critical and helpful. Time until final decision took a bit long again.
Motivation:
Relatively fast review process, especially quick acceptence after revision.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Good quality of the reviewer comments.
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed but focused principally on style and were contradictory ("thesis should be emphasized more at the outset" / "thesis presented too bluntly... can take more time to develop"), so they did not help in developing the essay.
Motivation:
The review was detailed and helped by pointing to a missed source on the subject. The editor was quick to respond to questions and the process went very smoothly.
Motivation:
The reviews were detailed and helped improve the article on several points. The process went very smoothly even with a change of editors mid-process.
Motivation:
Although the initial review took a while, the editor was quick to communicate throughout the process, the reviewers were clear about the positive aspects of the article and what needed some clarification, and the process went very smoothly.