Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviewers were relatively fast and quite helpful. Verdict was 'minor revisions'. Time from acceptance to publication was longer than expected given the review process, and working with the typesetters was challenging (no direct contact possible, and corrections on proofs are not always handled systematically).
Motivation:
The initial review was high quality, though we were surprised there was only one reviewer. It included critical comments on the overall paper as well as proposed minor edits to the ms text, so clearly the reviewer had spent a lot of time. The editor just forwarded the review without adding any comments of their own. Resubmission took over a year due to external circumstances; after that, acceptance came lightning fast, without the review round we were expecting. Again, the editor had no comments except to say that this version was fine. The paper did improve a lot thanks to the initial review, but still it feels weird to skip the second review round (if I had been the original reviewer I would've wanted to see the response to reviewers and the edits made). But perhaps at this journal, "revise and resubmit" can mean anything from minor revisions to almost rejected, and our ms ended up more towards the former end of the scale.
Motivation:
The Journal is very valuable and the reviews are deep and detailed. The only not good thing I found was that the final acceptance process is quite low, but, in general, I consider the Journal as high performance.
Motivation:
Very quick review process. Good reviewer comments.
Motivation:
The review process has been detailed and quite fast.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
Motivation:
The manuscript in hand was a study protocol already approved by external reviewers during the funding stage. In this way, the review process by BMC Public Health was very quick and strait to the point, but the time between acceptance and publication was relatively long (6 weeks) when compare with the review process.
Motivation:
It seemed that there was one negative peer reviewer who had misunderstood some of the study design, of the 3 reviewers the only one to do so, and there were a number of suggestions that did not seem relevant to the authors.
Motivation:
review was too long ; ms sent on 28th september 2015; accepted as completed only on 15th october and first decision only on 04th january 2015
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Everything was clear, rather quick, and properly handled by the editors.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
The referee comments were appropriate and helped us.
The overall duration of hte revision process was absolutely acceptable.
Motivation:
The reviews were useful and quite to the point. The communication with the Editor was perfect, but it took some time to receive the reviews and the decision.
Motivation:
Most of the reviews were useful and they have improved the paper, but the process of receiving the reviews and the decision was inexcusably slow. Communication with the editor could have been better, and the editor could have been more engaged in the process. One reviewer had unreasonable comments, and we feel that the editor should have stepped in after our rebuttal. This has considerably delayed the publication for no reason. After acceptance, typesetting by Elsevier induced some errors and it was also slow. CEUS is a good journal, but our experience with this paper was bad.
Motivation:
Fairly good review process, with acceptable time between submission and acceptance.
Motivation:
Everything went very smoothly, the review was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
The review was constructive with plenty of suggestions to improve the manuscript's quality. The time to handle the manuscript was fair.
Motivation:
The review comments were good.
The editorial process was fast
The editorial process was fast
Motivation:
The editor (Dr. Parker) was very constructive in his remarks and granted us more time to do the necessary experimental procedures that were needed for the revision. Review process was within the time allocated and reviewers comments were constructive.
Motivation:
The comments from Editorial Office and from the referees were in general insightful, the weakest point is that the overall process took quite long time
Motivation:
Very professional and prompt responses. I was impressed with the interface for submission and the turnaround on submissions and revisions.
Motivation:
The editor explained what was wrong about the manuscript, and advised some brief changes that could be made in order to be considered for peer-review in the same journal.
Motivation:
It was not clear that all authors had to send a confirmation email to the journal. Therefore there was a huge delay in the editorial process.
Motivation:
The overall review process was not properly managed by the Editor. We submitted two companion papers to the same journal, highlighting, in our letter to the Editor, that they were related to the same topic and suggesting to handle them together. After 3 months, apparently, the Editor was not able to find any reviewer for our manuscripts. After almost 5 months, just one paper was sent to one reviewer. Unfortunately, the reviewer received only the second paper, without any information about the companion one, and he could not evaluate it. The conclusion was that he rejected the paper, while after five months, apparently, the Editor was still looking for a reviewer for the first paper. At the end, we decided to retire both the manuscripts. They were both submitted to another journal (Carbon Balance and Management), which provided a revision, from two reviewers, in three weeks. The first paper is now under publication and the second is under revision, after having recieved the comments from the reviewer.
Motivation:
Almost 3 weeks of waiting just to hear that the paper "is not considered suitable" for the journal. That's too long.