Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The manuscript was well handled by the journal. The problem was more the reviewers who made comments that could be addressed or answered easily. As the reviewer advised the editor that they don't want to see the paper published in this journal, thus any appeal was unlike succeed.
Motivation:
The review experience with this journal was mostly positive. The first round of comments improved the manuscript greatly, as well as the second round. However, my experience is not excellent because the duration to receiving the editorial decision was slightly disproportional with the amount of changes that I had to make.
Motivation:
I had the fortune of the manuscript being accepted without any further changes based on a single (very short & positive) review.
Motivation:
The reviews we got were very detailed - partly, criticism was warranted, but one reviewer tried to change the scope of the paper from a theoretical framework to an empirical study, which was the reason we finally withdrew the manuscript. After receiving the first review, we asked a question concerning the reviewer's suggestions to the editors via e-mail, which was answered as late as two months later (and after several inquiries from our part).
Motivation:
Manuscript was handled in a very efficient and quick way. Input from one of the reviewers was very poor, basically just recommending the addition of 5 own papers to reference list. This type of reviewing should be excluded and the reviewer cautioned. Input from the other reviewer was detailed, useful and constructive.
Motivation:
It took 8 months and a couple of inquiring emails to finally hear back from the journal after submission and receive reviewers' comments. Nevertheless, reviewer reports were detailed, pertinent, considerate and extremely useful to improve the paper. Handling editor was friendly, but handling process was inefficient. Communication was poor, and I only got the final decision letter after editor realised that the journal had already sent me the proofs to revise...
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with appropriate justification. Editors at ASR even took the time to comment on the paper, and suggested alternative publications channels.
Motivation:
The review was detailed, perceptive, and helpful. The reviewer spent more time discussing specific details (esp. minutiae pertaining to the data such as presentation and accuracy) than the overall argument, with which he/she seemed to have been in agreement (maybe that's why?). The review was well-informed and enhanced the article (not to mention that it spared the author from several errors, some of them embarrassing). What was particularly superb about this publishing experience was the most excellent copy-editing, for which the journal utilises the famous Dr Iveta Adams of CUP. It is for a good reason that NTS is considered the top-tier journal in the field. Every detail receives adequate attention.
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