Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Good quality reviews but I was hoping for a quicker process. It was not that long however.
Motivation:
Fast decision: very positive
Motivation:
Fair assessment, transparent decision
Motivation:
3 critical points:
-After every single of the 4 submissions, we were informed after 5-11 days that the quality check wasn't passed. Each time another tiny point had to be corrected that had been in there from the beginning, instead to inform us about all the points after the 1st check. And checking the corrected points took again up to 7 days each time. This prolonged processing tremendously.
-Instead of the original submission date, the system marked the submission 18 days later.
-After the 3rd submission, we recieved an email with "Final Decision" in the header, but had to resubmit the manuscript again. Though only 3 minor points (typos etc.) had to be corrected, reviewing took a month again.
-After every single of the 4 submissions, we were informed after 5-11 days that the quality check wasn't passed. Each time another tiny point had to be corrected that had been in there from the beginning, instead to inform us about all the points after the 1st check. And checking the corrected points took again up to 7 days each time. This prolonged processing tremendously.
-Instead of the original submission date, the system marked the submission 18 days later.
-After the 3rd submission, we recieved an email with "Final Decision" in the header, but had to resubmit the manuscript again. Though only 3 minor points (typos etc.) had to be corrected, reviewing took a month again.
Motivation:
The review process was not terribly long but there was no feedback at all on my article. I received no comments from the reviewer, simply an email from the editor saying, "I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum."
30.1 weeks
52.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviews were objective and the review process and editorial handling was extremely fast.
Motivation:
I recommend to avoid this journal. It took about a half year to go through the first round. I am glad that one reviewer's comments are helpful.
Motivation:
After a positive answer on our presubmission enquiry, surprisingly, the paper was rejected by the editorial board member who deemed it "too specialized".
Motivation:
The manuscript was read and carefully investigated. The overall handling was satisfactory and I think this is a good journal.
Motivation:
I think my manuscript was not read at all. They rejected it because I had no published paper in that field. May be they are right because they don't want to waiste their reviewer's times. But, I think these journals, must publish "invited papers" if they want to take the author's resume into account.
Motivation:
It took more than a year to get reports from reviewers, one of which was only of few lines; When I talked to some colleagues about it, they laughed and said this is not unusual from this journal. I strongly advice against submitting a paper to it.
Motivation:
Pretty good experience overall.
Motivation:
I feel that we thoroughly and adequately addressed all reviewer concerns. After our resubmission the manuscript was rejected by the editorial board for reasons that were not initially indicated as problematic (e.g., the sample size).
Motivation:
Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
Motivation:
Editorial decision seemed out of line with recommendations of reviewers.
Motivation:
Decent duration of the review process. Two out three reviews of good quality, which certainly improved the manuscript, although the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
The paper made a pretty provocative claim, so I understand that the reviewers did not quite like it (although one reviewer was quite sympathetic). I wonder, though, why it would take more than 6 months to get reviewers for a double-spaced 12 page paper.
Motivation:
Everything was excellent, except review which arrived late.
Motivation:
The review was returned in one day, with a rejection. However, a year later, another paper in the same area (and equally interesting results) was published.
Motivation:
One review consisted of only one negative sentence. This reviewer did not comment on a conceptual advance or the scientific quality but only on significance to the field although the journal explicitly stated in their policy that only scientific quality and not significance is rated. Both rounds of review were in good time but a quite negative experience was the quality check with unspecific and unjustified comments with a considerable loss of time and the requirement to upload each part of the manuscript again and again.
Motivation:
The reviews were good, except for one reviewer who took too long.