Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The initial review only took a couple of months, which requested major revisions. Following revision and resubmission, the editor was unable to immediately secure the previous reviewers, but judged the revisions to be sufficient and only requested a few other minor revisions before final acceptance.
Motivation:
A bit lenghty review rounds but fair and tonthe point
Motivation:
The editors were very helpful and the manuscript was improved greatly during the review process.
Motivation:
The editor was very helpful during the process.
Motivation:
Scirev did not allow us to enter that the review process was as following:
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
We submitted, but the manuscript got rejected with the option of resubmission after the first review round. The reason was because the scope of our paper was too limited. Conditions for resubmission were adding data from different sensors and increasing the length of the paper to discuss interactive effects between added data and original data. Other feedback from both reviewers was also extremely helpful to enhance the scientific credibility of our manuscript.
The paper was revised and resubmitted, which then got sent back to one reviewer (same as round 1) who found the changes sufficient as well as the AE. Minor adjustments were requested in terms of language and grammar.
The decision for minor revisions was sent to us on the 7th of March 2023 and these changes were submitted on the 19th of March 2023. Overall, the review process of this journal was thorough and fair.
Motivation:
Received 2 positive reviews and 1 negative review, but we were not given the opportunity to address the concerns of the negative review (despite the feedback being addressable).
Motivation:
Quick review and responsive editors! Reviewers were fair and helpful.
Motivation:
My experience with FIP in this case was pretty satisfactory. The editor was extremely efficient, and one of the reviewers provided me lots of helpful suggestions.
Motivation:
super fast and smooth process, I was positively surprised
Motivation:
One reviewer seemed positive, the other did not understand the methods and seemed not to understand that it was a research note (lots of comments on more literature, etc)
Motivation:
Process was not very slow (review period included Holiday season). The editorial assistants were picky with regression table styles but everything else was smooth. Reviewer quality was high.
Motivation:
Two reviewers were negative so they did not wait for the third to make things quicker. Reviewers were harsh but fair and all was done relatively quickly.
Motivation:
Acta Mat is one of the top journals in the field of materials science. It took immense efforts, patience and work to finally get it accepted.