Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They will not send the manuscript to the same reviewers, hence new corrections will be asked each and every time. Finally after 1 year, they will accept the manuscript by saying "While there are still improvements in language and the study would be stronger with the added information, I'm inclined to accept it at this stage simply because of the length of time it has been with us, and the work the authors have put into it".
Motivation:
Three high quality reviews and a helpful action editor. Really rapid turnaround. We submitted to Collabra for its expert editorial board and novel institution-backed open access publishing model. We were not disappointed.
Motivation:
The editor rejected the revised version of the paper based on the decision of the 2nd reviewer's point, which was completely based on the type of data used for the analysis and nothing else. The 2nd reviewer pointed out that they did not even bothered looking at the revisions due to the fact that the use of cross-sectional data cannot be used to disentangle hypotheses as proposed in the paper. The journal had already published several similar papers using cross-sectional data to draw upon similar theses/causal mechanisms - under the same editor. Further, if this were to be an issue, the editor should have desk rejected it not make it go through a one year review process and have such positions made clear in the "about the journal" section and or instructions to authors.
Motivation:
Unlike our previous experience, the review process was swift, and we had (I believe) 7 different reviewers who were generally very positive and very constructive. I believe the paper did end up being much better due to the review process.
Motivation:
Instead of the promised 'one month to review', we waited 3 months. Got an email that they were having trouble finding reviewers after 3 months. Then a few days later, they sent one apparently fairly hasty statistical review. There were several excellent comments that would have been readily addressed. The reviewer's main concern, however, indicate s/he had not read the manuscript very closely (did not understand the main dependent variable despite descriptions in methods and figures). This feels like we did not receive a proper peer review...and waiting this long only to then receive minimal review, is highly disappointing and beneath what I'd expect of PLoS ONE.
Motivation:
none
Motivation:
non
Motivation:
Relatively quick turn around times. Good communication from the journal and reviewers comments were constructive without being too critical.
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
A slow review process, likely because of the holiday events (Thanksgiving Day, Christmas, New Year) which is excusable.
Motivation:
Considering that I have papers waiting at other journals for nearly 9 months now (without any feedback from editorial offices), the speed of Journal of Peace Research was quite refreshing.
Motivation:
After about a month, I emailed the journal several times about progress of the review. The editorial office was very responsive and polite, but they kept promising that the review would be finished the following week, until it was more than 10 weeks letter. It was very frustrating.
Motivation:
I appreciate the rapid review of JBC. That is why I gave them a 4. I am a little concerned with the reviewers. Sometimes the reviews are reasonable and sometimes they are not. It feels like the reviewers are selected randomly and may or may not have appropriate expertise for the submitted manuscript based on their responses.
Motivation:
I contacted the journal after a while. They were always responsive and very polite. Otherwise, I would have given them a 1. After they were contacted, they promised that the review would be done next week, and the next week after that. They asked me to be patient. It was extremely frustrating. I do not know any lab that can afford to wait more than 15 weeks for a manuscript to be reviewed. Their delays ended up causing me problems with my grants and with the university.
Motivation:
Smooth process. Both reviewers had few comments, so hard to assess quality of review based on these.
Motivation:
The review and editorial process was fair. It took a long time from acceptance until a pre-print version was available at the journal's website; the reason was apparently that they had a lot of papers accepted which takes some time to process...
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected due to "some important problems" identified by reviewers. The editor sent the review reports, but one of them just referred to the attached PDF with comments. This, allegedly, contained information about the important problems, but was not forwarded to us. We sent a request to recieve this attachment to the editor, but never heard back from him.
Motivation:
Fair review process. Partly open review. Very helpful staff, and good copy-editing process.
Motivation:
Very reasonabvle reviews, positive but critical. Helped to improved and focus the paper. The editor was very keen in obtaining graphics and figures of high quality and in a very specific way, which actually imporved the presentation. Happy with it and will submit more work to PCA