Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Almost two weeks lost for an editor's immediate reject decision probably based on the potential impact of the subject and not on manuscript content. Other journals' editors do it in one day.
Motivation:
Immediate reject decision in only one day!
Motivation:
The review process was excellent as were the comments provided by the reviewers. However, the length of the final editorial decision on the manuscript was too long.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected, the reviews were very helpful and the handling time was reasonable.
Motivation:
Extremely slow desk rejection. Poor communication from the editorial assistant.
Motivation:
The editor, Kevin Hewison, was extremely prompt. Even though the paper was rejected because it did not fit with the current publishing agenda of the journal, we appreciated Dr Hewison's clear and timely communication that allowed us to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
Althoug the final decision was not satisfying, the revision process was quite fast and relevant, and the comments of the editor and the reviewers helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
It was my second experience in publishing and first in this journal.
I rated 3 because:
-if I compare my process to the one of other people in my field, it seemed a standard process. Nothing was exceptionnaly bad or good.
- Overall the process is not efficient. There should be some amount of money involved for reviewers for speeding the process. I think that we would gain high efficiency also if the most important points that have to be improved in the manuscript were discussed verbally between the reviewer and the one who's been reviewed. There is a high amount of wasted time because both don't understand each other.
I rated 3 because:
-if I compare my process to the one of other people in my field, it seemed a standard process. Nothing was exceptionnaly bad or good.
- Overall the process is not efficient. There should be some amount of money involved for reviewers for speeding the process. I think that we would gain high efficiency also if the most important points that have to be improved in the manuscript were discussed verbally between the reviewer and the one who's been reviewed. There is a high amount of wasted time because both don't understand each other.
Motivation:
This was my first experience in publishing a paper.
I found that the ratio "improvement of manuscript" versus "amount of time it takes to make corrections and resubmit" was excellent, particularly when I compare to my second experience in publishing with Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. But this may also have to do with the fact that this paper (in JAB) was more a technical subject than a biological one (so maybe more straightforward to answer).
I found that the ratio "improvement of manuscript" versus "amount of time it takes to make corrections and resubmit" was excellent, particularly when I compare to my second experience in publishing with Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. But this may also have to do with the fact that this paper (in JAB) was more a technical subject than a biological one (so maybe more straightforward to answer).
Motivation:
The editor's decision was fast.
Motivation:
It is unacceptable that after 3 months and a half, we received just the comment of one reviewer. We expected two or three referee after such a long time.
Motivation:
Judging on the general style of reviewer comments, he had a good knowledge of martensitic transformations in the iron-based alloys. His remarks concerned some shortcomings in presentation of experimental data.
Motivation:
The remarks of the first reviewer were critical and reasonable. It was not difficult to revise the manuscript. Generally, I think that the accepted practice with one reviewer is not sufficient for a correct estimation of submitted manuscripts.
Motivation:
Disappointed editor did not provide a specific reasons for rejection. Extremely impressed with efficiency of turnaround - 4.1 weeks including christmas break.
Motivation:
I received two reviews. One was thoughtful, the other was two sentences long.
Motivation:
Extremely long review process ( 5 months). Associate editor couldn't find reviewers and in the end got only two instead of three. Rejection decision was based on concerns expressed by the two reviewers that were clearly debatable and showed a one-sided theoretical bias. I would have like to have the chance to respond to the reviews. I didn't... I got the sense that the manuscript got the shaft by the associate editor as he/she didn't get involved and wanted this done with. Not impress by the review process.