Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We received 3 reviews. One of them was excellent. We did a lot of work to satisfy this reviewer opinion. Another reviewer was focusing in minor details, which also improved the paper. The last one did a short review. So on the average the review was OK. The first and second reviewer demands really improved a lot the paper, so we were happy with that. Once the manuscript was accepted, the proof-reading and final editing was extremely quick and efficient.
Motivation:
Understandable, well described reason for rejection. Reviewers were knowledgeable and provided useful feedback.
Motivation:
From the first review 2 out of 3 reviewers gave very positive comments, but the 2 very positive review reports were ignored and it was sent out for a second review with the one negative reviewer again, and another reviewer.
Motivation:
Reviewers comments were clear and easy-to-follow. They improved the quality of the work and not just the way it was presented.
Motivation:
Reviewer comment were clear and the overall process was fast. The communication with editor and journal staff was excellent.
Motivation:
I ended up having to change the originally submitted manuscript significantly, but I liked the new approach and I think the quality was improved.
Motivation:
Reviewers were probably sleeping for 14 months. Suddenly, someday, for 10 minutes they read the paper and rejected. It was a pathetic experience. I am also a reviewer for top journals, but, I do proper judgment to a research article.
Motivation:
Although the result was not what I expectd, the Journal replied quickly, and I was able to send the manuscript to another journal
Motivation:
No.
Motivation:
This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper. Also, the review process took only 30 days (which was in advance announced).
Motivation:
The process was extremely slow but the report was quite accurate
Motivation:
Extremely fast
Motivation:
This was my first major journal submission and the editor and reviewers were extremely helpful and polite.
Motivation:
The reviews were quite substantial and provided after a very short period of time. The desired changes to the manuscript were clearly summarized so that we could address them rather quickly, although quite a lot was demanded.
Motivation:
It took to my opinion unacceptable long till reviewers had been asigned and reviews arrived. Editors managed to receive one review only. The review suffered from major ill-interpretation of our results. I informed the editors about the shortcomings of the review and asked them to inform the reviewer and to reconsider their decision (rejection) based on my explanations by which I rectified our approach. The editors told me that they will take care of my "problem". However, I never got an answer. Our mansucript virtually disappeared. This is certainly a terrible way to deal with the work and ideas of ours. I appreciate the scirev-initiative since I feel often rightless in light of such kind of arbitrainess.
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the advices of the reviewers hepled me improve my work and I learned much from the review process
The review process of this journal was timely, accurate and instructive.
The review process of this journal was timely, accurate and instructive.
Motivation:
Reviews were sent back reasonably fast. They were thorough, fair and provided useful comments. Enough time to revise the manuscript was alotted for each revision round (60 days).
Motivation:
Both reviewers were very helpful and constructive. Their reports helped make a substantial revision to the original manuscript. I recommend researchers in the field of education choose this journal for submitting their manuscript.