Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The comments received from the editor and the two reviewers were very objective, systematic, constructive and even inspiring. They included some editing in the wording. Also, they helped us clarify and re-write some ambiguous points and redesign tables. For few of the comments that we felt inappropriate, we sent back explanations and justifications to support our views. These justifications were accepted. Our authorship group considered this experiences indeed a rich and inspiring one!
Motivation:
Very long time for desk rejection
Motivation:
Very professional with areal willingness to improve the paper
Motivation:
Very professionnal
Motivation:
The manuscript was not considered as a high priority by the editor, so why to sent it to external reviewers.
Motivation:
Rapid review
30.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Too long
Motivation:
Fast and straightforward process. The reviewers had many insightful suggestions that really improved the paper.
Motivation:
The editor thought it was not a good fit for the journal, without much explanation.
Motivation:
Quick responce! Rejected within 3 days. Do did not have to waste time!
Motivation:
My manuscript was not found suitable for BMC Research Notes and the editorial team suggested to transfer my manuscript to Journal of Medical Case Reports. I agreed to the transfer.
Motivation:
I do not have any negative experience or any criticism to the Journal of Medical Case Reports. My overall experience was positive. The review process was slow. I am happy with the outcome. My manuscript was published.
Motivation:
Professional and competent handling by the editors, fair and helpful reviewers.
Motivation:
The fastest review process I've ever seen, and not for the first time with this journal. Fair, fast, and very helpful. The submission system is also highly author-friendly.
Motivation:
Fast, friendly, and professional handling by the editor; helpful, polite, and professional reviewer comments
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was fair and mostly constructive, the last round however was based on a reviewer who missed the point and required unnecessary work. The editorial team, otherwise very helpful and fair, should have stepped in at that point. In summary however, the manuscript was handled mostly fair and did improve by the review process.
Motivation:
a bit slow, but thorough, fair reviews
Motivation:
The reviews were helpful and suggested several important improvements to our paper. The review process was a bit slow for a 'letters' journal (>3 months) but not too bad. After submitting revisions, a decision was made quickly.
Motivation:
The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
Motivation:
The paper was judged to preliminary by the journal and was rejected in reasonable delay.
Motivation:
One reviewer did not want our paper to be accepted and the editor did not send our manuscript to another reviewer. Thus the paper was rejected after months of revision.
Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewers have done valuable comments that strengthened the paper.
Motivation:
I sent my article as a letter to the editor, so it does not need an external reading