Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
A little slow with reviews, but overall a good process. This journal also provides detailed status updates on their author portal so you always know what stage it is at.
Motivation:
I perceived the quality of the review as disappointing. To my opinion, the overall conclusions were merely based on perceptions/opinions about the content and context instead of a proper understanding of both. Several comments on the content were incorrect but stated as facts. Other comments I perceived as outside the purpose and scope of the paper. Some comments left the question: “Did the reviewer really read this article or only parts of it?” One reviewer was on the edge of being rude and offensive without giving a proper motivation. There may be valid reasons to reject a paper, but then, be relevant, precise and constructive. The quality of the review is by far not in proportion to the effort that was put into this work. It is not all bad. There are some valuable and constructive comments which I am grateful for. And I hold myself fully responsible for how others perceive my work.
Motivation:
Of the two papers I've had published with this journal so far, this first one was to date among the longest and most challenging review processes. The length of time overall may appear understandable given the 3 reviews that had to be undertaken. However, receiving the first review 7 months after initial submission is in my opinion of very low caliber. Followed by a further 7 months and then 1.5 months for the other reviews, it is my opinion that no review process should take this long, particularly if the paper was of fairly standard length.
Motivation:
Comments were detailed and helpful. Everything was handled promptly.
Motivation:
My paper theme and journal's aim and scope do not have a close match. However, editor took it forward for review, as my paper theme can contribute to the body of knowledge that journal focuses on. The editor followed the reviewer's comments and suggested me to submit by formalizing a model that extends government and software engineering paradigms. Moreover, the reviewers could not differentiate between capability and capacity indicating that they could not follow my paper. They did not understand the model used in my paper and felt that my paper is focusing only on communication between and among projects. Given the context in which my paper has been taken forward for review a careful selection of reviewers could have helped me in getting meaningful comments to further improve the paper.
Motivation:
more than 6 months until first decision (only after reminding the editors)
Motivation:
It was not the fastest process, but I was very content with the way the journal handled the submission and the quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
Response editor, but no editorial comments or suggestions in r&r letter.
Motivation:
I felt that the review process was quite fast and reviewer knew and understood the work.
Motivation:
The reviewers gave me useful, constructive feedback that helped me improve the manuscript. I learned a lot from the reviewers' report.
Motivation:
Reviewers are very serious, the article on the changes, put forward a lot of constructive comments, while the magazine's review process is convenient and quick.
Motivation:
Competent reviewers, but took around 7 months before we heard anything.
Motivation:
Email reads: "The editorial workload at present makes it impossible to provide you with detailed comments. We cannot provide comments on rejected papers. We focus rather on arriving at a well-informed judgment without undue delay."
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround. We felt the editors' reasons for rejecting were not unreasonable.
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround, fair assessment for why it didn't fit with the journal.
Motivation:
Fast editorial turnaround, and good suggestions of other more suitable journals.
Motivation:
Reviews were mostly fair and had some criticisms that we felt we could address. Unfortunately, the editor rejected completely without opportunity to revise, even though the reviewers seemed open to revisions in their comments.
Motivation:
A very long review process. I received a very strange report that contained an "amalgamation" of two reviews, as it was explained by the editor. It was impossible to judge whether one, two or three persons wrote the review report. The review report itself was very angry and provided no help. Non-transparent reviewing. I will not submit a new paper until the current editorial team will be changed by new editors.
Motivation:
The reviewers did not understand the work. Instead instead of declaring this, they based their arguments in impressions and declared that they did not believe some of the results. Those results were based on published and well-known theoretical tools.
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
Motivation:
Though our paper was rejected for too much focus on methodological development, I was satisfied with the overall journal experience. While 2.5 weeks for a desk rejection may seem long, it was submitted shortly before the typical US winter holiday break, and therefore most people would likely hear sooner.
Motivation:
Reviewing process was thorough, communication was quick.